Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • davemorton
    • By davemorton 30th Nov 18, 11:43 AM
    • 27,173Posts
    • 325,333Thanks
    davemorton
    Elite: Is this table taken please?
    • #1
    • 30th Nov 18, 11:43 AM
    Elite: Is this table taken please? 30th Nov 18 at 11:43 AM
    Just looking for a spare quiet table in the corner of the arms for a few exiled elite to chat, is this table free please?
    “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
    Juvenal, The Sixteen Satires
Page 410
    • tweets
    • By tweets 15th May 19, 7:55 PM
    • 32,673 Posts
    • 443,398 Thanks
    tweets
    Roly poly ok instead of biscwit.
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    This match both teams going 10 to dozen in second half
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th May 19, 7:58 PM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Yes they will be getting another email soon asking why they not replied .

    And no its not in my junk email that's what they normally say if emails go missing .
    Originally posted by tweets
    On that one - depends what it is, if it is not urgent - I would be inclined to leave the 48 hours to slip and hope they reply soon. Sending another email can just slow things down by giving them further emails to reply to or rather to fail to reply to. So, if not urgent, maybe wait a week (since they did say 48 hours) before emailing again. Or maybe their '48 hours' is an auto-reply that doesn't apply to your type of enquiry? Sometimes I know, from the enquiries I am making, that their target for dealing with my type of enquiry is actually a longer time than the auto-reply says, because people are inaccurate again. So, in that case, with me already knowing their timescales rather than being Joe Public that doesn't, I ignore the inaccurate information that would mislead Joe Public. Because I know more than the people at the organisation know or they have forgotten to update the auto-reply that has become inaccurate.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 15-05-2019 at 8:01 PM.
    • tweets
    • By tweets 15th May 19, 8:05 PM
    • 32,673 Posts
    • 443,398 Thanks
    tweets
    On that one - depends what it is, if it is not urgent - I would be inclined to leave the 48 hours to slip and hope they reply soon. Sending another email can just slow things down by giving them further emails to reply to or rather to fail to reply to. So, if not urgent, maybe wait a week (since they did say 48 hours) before emailing again. Or maybe their '48 hours' is an auto-reply that doesn't apply to your type of enquiry? Sometimes I know, from the enquiries I am making, that their target for dealing with my type of enquiry is actually a longer time than the auto-reply says, because people are inaccurate again. So, in that case, with me already knowing their timescales rather than being Joe Public that doesn't, I ignore the inaccurate information that would mislead Joe Public. Because I know more than the people at the organisation know or they have forgotten to update the auto-reply that has become inaccurate.
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    9th May I sent it . I was promised a bag treats for our Poppy because her new bowl was late being delivered. Was promised treats on 27th April so waited til 9th May before asking. Will give them til middle next week they may just turn up in post.

    Poppy's bowl arrived and she loves it
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th May 19, 8:05 PM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Next one is two-thirds answered, but the most important third missing. And they've managed to do it in such a way that part of the two-thirds actually makes them legally unable to tell me the one third that I really wanted to know.

    This is all very obtuse isn't it? For you.

    So - I can ask again, but in relation to a different set of info. later on, think that's the best way to go on this - to get the one third but in relation to a different time. And with me knowing about what sort of details they have next time. More delay and won't be finding out now for even longer.

    It's probably another misunderstanding - as they can't see from what I wrote what my actual priorities were. I've said them but not in a stand-out way. So they are there if they actually paid attention, but - partly my fault on this one probably and, had I known what I now know, I would have been able to have got to the point.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 15-05-2019 at 8:10 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th May 19, 8:06 PM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    9th May I sent it . I was promised a bag treats for our Poppy because her new bowl was late being delivered. Was promised treats on 27th April so waited til 9th May before asking. Will give them til middle next week they may just turn up in post.

    Poppy's bowl arrived and she loves it
    Originally posted by tweets
    Oh well, if you were promised on 27 April, might be justified to press them now. They've already had you waiting much longer than their broken promise. Or, as you suggest, may just be the post service. Mail to my place can take a week or more to arrive sometimes.
    • tweets
    • By tweets 15th May 19, 8:09 PM
    • 32,673 Posts
    • 443,398 Thanks
    tweets
    Oh well, if you were promised on 27 April, might be justified to press them now. They've already had you waiting much longer than their broken promise. Or, as you suggest, may just be the post service. Mail to my place can take a week or more to arrive sometimes.
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    Yes will wait a bit longer Poppy not desperate for treats or food
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th May 19, 8:20 PM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Another fire risk request arising from the news article. Refusing the information. This new one is claiming not to be able to provide because of personal data, it seems because, they say, they are a request for the fire risk on someone's property. But can't they take out the property details as disclosing the documents for the several unknown places I asked wouldn't tell me whose house they related to?

    If someone is in the situation and their Council has done a fire risk on their property, according to this if they haven't told you what they have found, you should be requesting your personal data. It's not the case that all personal information always has to be withheld - but certainly private individuals as opposed to senior staff for example (or even more junior staff in certain cases where the information relates to their job role rather than their privacy) have an expectation of privacy but there may be ways of taking the identifying information out.
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 15th May 19, 8:26 PM
    • 55,251 Posts
    • 641,715 Thanks
    bubbs
    Any chance of a biscuit?
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    No you need a loss this week
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th May 19, 8:28 PM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Final email of the day. We may have an answer (or not) on this, as I am probing into why the polling company that the Electoral Commission commissioned to test the wording of the question that was eventually used in the EU Referendum did not probe into people's different understandings of the word "leave" that, to me, looking at their report in hindsight, it seems they superficially brushed over and didn't examine. They start in one paragraph and then the section ends - they address other things but this thing, which has proven intractable ever since, it got missed. Incompleteness and lack of attention to detail again.

    Not saying that I paid attention. I thought that "remaining" was very clear to me. Now I realise there are at least 8 different ways of leaving and at least 3 ways of remaining. In fact, because I have moved on and into looking at what the "European Union" means and that further vagueness in the question, I have at least two ideas of what that is - so it is 16 ways of leaving and 6 ways of remaining. Because under the first 8 ways of leaving you are "leaving" the EU in the definition of the EU definition 1. And then 8 ways of "leaving" the EU as defined definition 2. Does the EU mean its central institutions only? Or - daft question - does it also include all of the EU agencies?

    There are I suspect more views than that. I am moving on from this topic now and may come back to it several weeks away.

    EDIT: "Invitation to tender" says the document - invitation to tender to the polling company. It's a ten page document so I will have to read it all later and see what it says.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 15-05-2019 at 8:37 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th May 19, 8:31 PM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Any chance of a biscuit?
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    What is a "biscuit"?

    Actually we don't need to go into that as I "think we all know" (albeit in our own ways), but more importantly, what type of biscuit?

    I shall be disappointed, for now, if your "biscuit" is a jaffa cake, just because you are making me hungry (by mentioning "biscuit") for a biscuit biscuit on this precise occasion rather than a jaffa cake technically a 'biscuit'. Or maybe some people see jaffa cakes as plainly biscuits and not anything else.

    If it is a dog biscuit, sadly it is no personal use to me.

    What type of biscuit do you mean?

    I am very choosy - not accepting offers of jaffa cakes when they are biscuits. I was just expecting some other biscuit instead - in other words, choosy, like I said.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 15-05-2019 at 8:34 PM.
    • tweets
    • By tweets 15th May 19, 8:42 PM
    • 32,673 Posts
    • 443,398 Thanks
    tweets
    What is a "biscuit"?

    Actually we don't need to go into that as I "think we all know" (albeit in our own ways), but more importantly, what type of biscuit?

    I shall be disappointed, for now, if your "biscuit" is a jaffa cake, just because you are making me hungry (by mentioning "biscuit") for a biscuit biscuit on this precise occasion rather than a jaffa cake technically a 'biscuit'. Or maybe some people see jaffa cakes as plainly biscuits and not anything else.

    If it is a dog biscuit, sadly it is no personal use to me.

    What type of biscuit do you mean?

    I am very choosy - not accepting offers of jaffa cakes when they are biscuits. I was just expecting some other biscuit instead - in other words, choosy, like I said.
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    Would have been a McVities rich tea
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • tweets
    • By tweets 15th May 19, 8:44 PM
    • 32,673 Posts
    • 443,398 Thanks
    tweets
    Was a brilliant match especially Second Half but grr didn't want Derby to win .

    Bedtime now cya all tomorrow Goodnight
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th May 19, 8:44 PM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Would have been a McVities rich tea
    Originally posted by tweets
    "Would have been". So you didn't have anything in mind and the biscuit was actually hypothetical?

    Rich tea is fine.

    Making me hungry.
    • tweets
    • By tweets 15th May 19, 8:49 PM
    • 32,673 Posts
    • 443,398 Thanks
    tweets
    "Would have been". So you didn't have anything in mind and the biscuit was actually hypothetical?

    Rich tea is fine.

    Making me hungry.
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    Yes I only got rich tea or a party ring they are biscuits I buy for Poppy so I can share

    I am definitely going now goodnight Savvy
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th May 19, 8:56 PM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    A retrospective rich tea biscuit.

    So, that's possibly it from me for tonight - off with my rich tea!

    I did end up with something in the end - a two-thirds inadequate thing that did tell me something but not what I really wanted to know to be honest (and which manages to prevent a justified complaint - though I suppose I need to avoid the stress of continually having to draw teeth) and a tender invitation to a polling organisation.

    I think the one that refused to discuss interpretations may have because they were making assumptions. I suspect they thought I was some bad person causing nuisance in a public place and trying to get out of something I had been charged with thus allowing me to disturb everyone else in the area, when in fact I am one of the good people, just trying to get them to clarify what they want everyone to do and what they are trying to stop us from doing. I feel they often do vague things to try to sweep up people that aren't really causing any nuisance and were never a problem. The trouble is - whilst most people ignore detailed rules anyway and just get on with their lives and aren't stopped by the authorities - if you do comply with what you are told - if it is unclear, they may be intending to stop only a limited thing but have drafted it much wider 'just in case' - on one view, the limited thing only is prohibited but on the other, as it is expressed in entirely vague terms (probably deliberately), you can't be sure. It is a criminal offence, so you have to avoid the entire lot just in case the whole lot are covered and banned so that you aren't breaking the criminal law. And then they refuse to tell you (me rather) what they meant. This won't do. They are supposed to define the activity they are banning specifically. I am a pesky troublemaker actually getting them to do what they should be doing. They should work for us, not the other way around.

    As was clear, it's prohibition after prohibition that is unclear, not just a single one. They have really tried to overstep, have overstepped, the mark on a number of them. 7 prohibitions out of 24 weren't clear to me - and I have given them the benefit of the doubt on an 8th one whose wording is open to possible abuse, because one Council elsewhere has defined it in such a way that that it makes the limitation to the offence meaningless and applies it regardless of it. The limitation should apply - things that actually disturb rather than just being there - but it is open to abuse against people who are just there (which could be any of us at any time).

    There seems to be a certain mindset behind this as well - of assumption, of a prejudiced dislike for certain groups of people that they want to get rid of, whilst arguably trying to avoid their responsibilities and providing public services for all. We're not supporting causing nuisance - nothing that really does affect people's lives. The trouble is they are covering things - almost everything - that really aren't it seems to me a problem but just so they can order and dictate to everyone, including those causing no problem, what they can and can't do (and then don't actually clearly say so it seems just an exercise of power and control).

    They had a consultation - which I think tends to attract people engaged in local politics rather than the wider public so the responses are a biased sample or the approach at least has its limitations. However, that is not the point as I am asking what they mean now the law is in force. I mean what is a "significant" annoyance? If they just mean something that really does disturb people and have them bothered, why don't they just tell me that? To me, any annoyance is a significant annoyance, including their own of failing to answer my question (although I have not told them that). The problem is that their questionnaire (I am not raking over this with them but just noticing what had happened now) proceeds from a certain approach, of asking people what they have problems with rather than identifying what is not causing a problem and avoiding inadvertently catching those activities in their broad wording. It is also contradictory in answers it gets - with many saying they don't have any real problems but then 90% saying something concerns them. They also have 90% in favour of banning a particular thing whose wording I have now challenged since public opinion surveys elsewhere reveal lots of different people define it in their own way. So they have 90% in total, each wanting to ban a different range of things as everyone thinks about it in their own way and no idea therefore as to what people generally actually wanted to ban or even why - because the same activity is unproblematic in other situations and yet they have banned it entirely, in unproblematic normal life situations as well as problem ones. So, I think everyone that does it in situations where it is no problem should also be prosecuted and stopped as it is illegal regardless and then they have failed to tell me which parts of that activity it actually covers - is it all of them or only some? And, irritatingly, I want to know if it is some, which some of them is it and which bits are the ones that aren't covered?

    I am not trying to get a loophole (but it is their fault if one exists, not mine and they should draft their legislation properly if that is the case). If the whole thing is a problem, then why can't they tell me it covers the whole? If it is only part then why can't they say that? Is it because they then don't want me doing the other part, the legal part, because they would rather leave it vague and prevent me doing the legal part by being able to say, from their vague wording, the whole is covered when in fact it is merely part since the rest isn't a problem? In other words, simply there to control us further than is necessary and prevent us doing non-problematic things just because they want to, as some power trip, because they deliberately leave their legislation vague? What reason could there be to refuse to clarify the vagueness if you didn't want to rely on it to control people who are causing no problems? These further questions have not been asked; they are just the suspicions in my mind that their refusal provokes, that would never have been suspected but for them refusing to give any clarification.

    The waffle that preceded their refusal to clarify what they meant by anything, I am still trying to work out what that means. They have muddied the waters and made everything there more unclear by casting doubt about what anything means at all through their own failure to use consistent terminology throughout the legislation which has doubtless irked them that I have picked up on when it is their imprecision, carelessness and inaccuracy that is at fault. I have ignored their further muddying but concentrated on my original questions as I await the clarification they have told me they are not "willing" to provide. Well, you can be willing or you can play it the other way - you can be unwilling and unhelpful if you want and then for me, by a long drawn-out process that just frustrates and annoys without legal remedy* anyone that wasn't willing to do so, to drag it out of you by some other legal way. I am expecting them eventually to admit that only a court can now decide, since they were not careful and have potentially covered beyond what they are legally allowed to do.

    EDIT: Actually, whilst saying they aren't willing to get into a debate over meanings, I now notice in their leading waffle - that I ignored as it didn't tell me what I didn't already know and which I didn't ask them to tell me - they have defined another word in this part of their email, that wasn't necessary to define since it didn't relate to any clarification of what they have banned. In other words, they clearly don't want to clarify what they have actually banned or haven't because they want that to be vague, but, despite claiming to not be "willing" to get involved in a debate, have in fact entered such a debate, over something that was irrelevant, doesn't clarify what is already clear and doesn't address any of my requests for clarification. I am glad I didn't notice this fact and ignored it before because it is actually an irrelevance: it has concentrated me onto the points of issue, the nub of what they obviously doesn't want to answer because it has struck at the heart of their plan to take people off the streets that are causing no problem to anyone and never have been doing so. They want to criminalise the normal activities that the unenforceable guidelines ask them not to cover. This is what the failure to answer suggests; there is clearly a problem for them as they don't wish to make things clear in accordance with what the central government guidelines (which exist for a reason) say they should.

    The way they have done it, at the moment the bans potentially stepping into covering things that are not and never have been a problem, and which are therefore outside of the legal powers to cover as the Act of Parliament only allows them to cover activities that have caused a problem in the area, whether or not action is taken against someone for doing an activity that is a normal thing people do everyday in other streets elsewhere in the country and is not a problem rests in the hands of the discretion of the public body as to whether to take action against. It should not be this way. We should not rely on good wishes of exercises of discretion, assurances that we won't be prosecuted for normal unproblematic things, it should be in the law that should be appropriately defined and not create offences beyond what is necessary because of problems being caused to people - which sometimes here I suspect are created "problems" because of the way the questionnaire was worded and actually weren't things people were having problems with - the questionnaire responses also say we aren't really having a problem - except the trouble is that people who respond, who do not think about matters properly or realise how their responses could be (and it seems have been) used, are the ones whose normal life activities are illegal (on the broad and "not willing to get into a debate" to clarify wording that has been used) and the lack of action against them rests solely in the goodwill of the public body. The 'not going to get into a debate' response rings alarm bells I feel - it's not because they don't want a debate, which surely if we were arguing over meanings of words in court we would have to have, precisely because they have been vague and thus opened the wording to debate - the problem is ordinary people may just take what an authority says and not challenge it - routes to challenge costly etc. - it suggests it is because they wish to act against everyone more widely, even when they are no problem, and with responses like this, our trust in discretion being exercised properly may be a little misplaced.

    Or alternatively these are ordinary hard-working local authority officials, struggling in a time of austerity, who are not lawyers, who do not realise the importance of drafting clear legislation (or else the lack of clarity suits them?) and don't have the time to do the careful job that we should be able to expect. Meanwhile, they have got time to deal with questionnaire responses, from members of the public that also haven't considered the matters properly and give superficial answers and knee-jerk responses when, actually, most people aren't really being caused problems but it is a tiny minority of people that should have targeted rather than turning on everyone by imposing things on the basis they wanted them when, had they realised it, they wouldn't have wanted their ordinary activities to be touched at all. I therefore think the answer is to prosecute people for their ordinary activities in the harshest possible way to the point where they realise that they didn't actually want what they thought or claimed they did. Ordinary people are beginning to annoy me. I don't like other people. Anything they do should be banned as it all causes me significant annoyance - this is especially because of my Asperger's syndrome which gives me a light switch (either no annoyance at all or total and absolute seething factually physically-felt sense of annoyance) rather than a dimmer switch of non-autistic people under which vague "significant" annoyance is not reached by whatever is the non-significant annoyances and the people should have taken into account that a person having Asperger's might be there as you take your risk depending on whoever you are around as to what might annoy the people that happen to be there at the time. Which is why it is so confounding in trying to work out what is going to be annoying to anyone else.

    Your fault - vague words, rather than defining specific activities that are causing enough annoyance, which we can then avoid doing. As opposed to having to avoid doing anything because anything might cause significant annoyance to someone at any random time at all. As you can't avoid doing anything - you always have to do something if in a public place, even if only walking across it to do normal business, the only option, in the absence of any clarity being provide, is to avoid going into the public place that is covered at all. So, the entire town centre is in effect off-limits if we take the law seriously (as this is criminal offences we must) and have to comply with it. I find everything significantly annoying (including people who underline and emphasise words such as "everything"). So you had best not be in a public place with a law such as this when I am there, assuming I can ever be there through not knowing what would cause significant annoyance to anyone else. A significantly annoying position.

    *Since following legal procedures against someone is deemed to be reasonable.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 15-05-2019 at 10:45 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th May 19, 11:03 PM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    The thing I remember about the Jeremy Kyle Show - this now a few years back but still "recent" times - I didn't watch it because it didn't really interest me - was sitting in my dentist's waiting room when it was on once and, with me just hearing them shouting and arguing, when I was in a 'public' place - a woman who is a stranger to me and her child were there - was just making me extremely uncomfortable because of the participant's behaviour. There's not much I can do to actually avoid having to experience what was the offensive content in a place such as this - except disturb myself by having to stand outside of the waiting room and why should I have to do that? - so I was just sat there, caught in it, no ability to avoid it - getting up and leaving the room would have been too late anyway as I could only do that, have to do that, after I had already been uncomfortable - so required to move in discomfort - although this programme (which could have been any other participant show had any other been on, wouldn't just be because Jeremy Kyle) might not have had the same effect on me if I had been viewing at home - by being caused offence by the shouting was unacceptable. It didn't matter what they were shouting - it was the way in which it was said that was the really uncomfortable thing. I really don't know why this sort of thing is allowed in involuntary public places - it's not cinemas in which you expect this sort of thing depending on films that you have gone to see and wouldn't make me uncomfortable at all there - but the effect on me in places like the waiting room is identical to if someone were in a street shouting angrily and abusively and which we do ban - although, if it is at night and no-one else really around and no-one is literally lurching up to me or at me - I've even had an occasion of that and was caused no discomfort by it at all but the television programme in the 'public' place was much worse. The public street was drunken what you might call swearing as well - and didn't affect me - but the angry and abusive shouting, involving no swearing at all, on the Kyle show when I was in the waiting room - very very uncomfortable to be around indeed and unwanted.

    If I go to British Transport Police's guidance as to behaviour on trains (another public area) - "If something makes you uncomfortable, then it is wrong."

    Well yes. It did do that, and it was.

    The problem from this would have been that the show was 'acceptable' in people's homes and should have been available to watch at the time - before all of what has lately happened - but the same thing on in a waiting room wasn't acceptable to me and I should not have had to experience it. It depends on where I am. There is a lot in public space than it would be fine in my home but if I happen to be out somewhere - in a clothes shop, in the barbers, at the doctors or dentists, in the car showroom waiting for my car to come back - I have made uncomfortable in all of these places at one time or another from some public broadcasting content - would be something at the very same time of day that would become inappropriate. If that is banned because of that, I then couldn't have it in my home at the same time of day. Maybe there needs to be a separate broadcasting system for public wider spaces like this (we are not talking cinemas, concerts or comedy clubs) - it's certainly worse for me than any public behaviour in physical presence of me that I have ever been around so I see no reason why the seriously uncomfortable broadcasting should not been stopped whilst the public's behaviour in physical presence in the same place that is uncomfortable would be controlled - and certainly a lot of stuff in public these days, on broadcasting systems, that I experience as very inappropriate.

    Just to clarify, this is not related to my autism, although I do simply notice things around me - I do not get uncomfortable just by having sounds around me - I am fine in the supermarket and don't get overloaded (indeed, if I did, my Asperger's would have been picked up much earlier than it was) - I do not have sensory problems - I heard and saw no such broadcast throughout the 1980s and 1990s and was never uncomfortable in any public place from any - it was solely from broadcasting or CD they have put on - in relation to specific content making me uncomfortable because of what the content was that is the problem. The only time I am not fine in a supermarket is solely in relation to specific content that happens to be on air - as I say, long years in the 1980s, 1990s, no such content was ever broadcast when I happened to be in a store at any time at all - therefore no problem. Specifically and solely in relation to offensive content on broadcasting in public, not about any sensory problem of autism as my version of autism does not have any - it's why, I think, it took over three decades to diagnose me as I never had any problems with being overloaded in public or anything - it is because of the nature of the content itself that I was uncomfortable, such as shouting and arguing on television when I am around strangers in a place that is not a cinema or anything else but a wider public place, such as a waiting room and it is very uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable to have people shouting and arguing in such a place full stop, regardless from what source. If it was people physically present, it would be the same. People do not behave that way in such places generally - I've never had such an experience yet - so that has never been a problem.

    It is only broadcasting for me that is constantly inappropriate in places like this, as indeed that one haphazard Jeremy Kyle show, just because of where I randomly happened to be, was for me on that one unchosen occasion - where people on the internet elsewhere write silly things such as "if you are offended, don't listen to it" or "switch off". How can I do either when I am in a public place do not have access to the off switch therefore or any remote control (would come too late anyway as the content of shouting has already made me uncomfortable) and cannot but hear something around me (not like a picture you could took away from if you didn't like it, instead intrusive, in the case of unpleasant shouting, sound that is heard everywhere in the room with no ability not to not hear it? Yet again, people obviously giving superficial lack of consideration to what they think because they have not thought about all environments and the inability to avoid offensive content, that you have not chosen to go and see or hear, in public. My only problems are in public places or, yet again, this used to happen years ago when someone else was here at home with me, always whenever someone else put something on and never chosen by myself. They kept putting things on that are uncomfortable to me when older relatives were also around me in the living room at the time.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 15-05-2019 at 11:35 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th May 19, 11:43 PM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    In fact, regarding that email where they replied refusing to clarify for this autistic person. If there are reasonable adjustments required, service providers etc. are supposed to be proactive and identify them without any disabled person even having used their service. They should, in fact, have known that I was autistic just by the nature of some of the questions I was asking. So, it is their fault for not being fully trained and having full awareness of autism. For example, I would say that, if someone writes and asks you "at which point does something qualify as being x and when is it y?", that's likely going to be an autistic person making that enquiry because that is how we think. It is the very kind of question that an autistic person will ask, because indeed the words x and y are unclear in that respect and we need clear and direct communication, not vagueness that non-autistics like to hide behind. Which probably makes my adjustments UNreasonable, because vagueness is a societal standard and you can't question a society standard because anything against that is deemed to be "undue" - therefore, yet again, they don't (society that is) really mean to make adjustments as, if you want them in your case, it is pick and choose when we apply our society standards and when we don't and a fundamental case of "when it suits" once again. Reasonable except when they are not - when we do not think they are.

    Well, at which point is something x and when it is y? You haven't answered. How can I know? When, I suspect, you probably don't either and that is the whole problem - you are vague, just exactly as I say you are. I would say, as Asperger's person, that are in fact people doing the correct things almost all the time and actually being right, we are actually the very ones to get you to be better as the things you say you will do or the things you should do according to what society has said you should do but you constantly woefully fail to do, I am probably one of the best people to pick on this and to challenge, because I will identify the issues (even if in a detailed way that confuses you because it seems to me you don't see the subtleties, those pin heads and fine distinctions that make the absolute and complete difference but which you wrongly think are the same thing) and will not give up until it is to my satisfaction in accordance with what society claims I should expect but it seems almost never delivers. Which of course you really dislike, because of the 'arrogant' attitude that it seems I have. It is not arrogant. I am in fact better than you (notice the roll-arounds: that indicates an acceptance that I am not actually saying it seriously).
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 15-05-2019 at 11:53 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th May 19, 11:58 PM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    This was not the page I saw earlier, but there we are on this one anyway
    https://autismum.com/2012/05/07/10-tips-on-how-to-communicate-with-autistic-people/

    The autistic person on that page (not literally obviously, as they aren't physically on that page but you know what I mean I hope) "... As a result, we may ask a lot of questions to clarify what is meant by something that you say. I have been told that I ask a lot of questions."

    They say they were told to ask a lot of questions.

    So there you are. I did what I would have been told to do were I this person and I did exactly what I should have done. Which is of course wrong. It's not my fault. Who's the fault with being unclear?

    I think it also is not me taking things literally. Whilst I see literal interpretations, and probably get those first (but I suspect that depends on how something is worded and what it says), I do a lot of reading between lines and getting implications from things because that is how people generally communicate. I will of course miss subtle emotions, I don't mean reading between lines to find things like that - as they are doubtless not present for me (note I am not actually sure, I really don't know; don't know if there is an emotion there or not). I can get implications. The problem is, I think, I get literal and numerous different implications and see all of them. You thought it was clear. It isn't - I see everyone's understanding of it, rather than merely just your own. It is your fault, of course, again for failing to see other people's perspectives and just seeing your own. I do not have my own perspective - I see everybody's - and cannot decide because they are different to each other and therefore, to any extent at all, in conflict since they are not exactly and precisely the same. I know - I am pedantic. That is sometimes thought to be taken literally, but, again, it's not the same is it?(), to be pedantic again, I don't know what you mean because there are several interpretations of what you have written so, can you clarify and let me know what you mean so that I can actually have a hope of understanding you and for some communication to me to actually be made rather than the failure to communicate through failing to make clear what you meant. It's actually me being reasonable. Because effective communication is needed and none is being made.

    Those were rhetorical questions above, I hope it was clear. Now for the one that is seeking an answer, should anyone wish to give one. Does anyone see anything unclear in what I actually say? If you do, please let me know and I will attempt to clarify for you. I just think what I have said above, in the full of the paragraph beginning "I think it is also not me taking..." is crystal clear and there are no ambiguities, or no ambiguity, there at all. It is how I tend to write - completely clear and unambiguous, which confuses people. It's the complete accuracy that floors most people, because approximation is usually how communication is. Equals vagueness and not clear at all to me. In short, I think I am crystal clear (at least in that paragraph). However, maybe I am just seeing my own 'clearness' - clear to me but clear as mud (in other words, unclear) to everyone else. Therefore, I would like to know, at least here, in relation to the paragraph I have referred to, and also this very paragraph you are reading now, whether both or one or other whichever is or may be unclear to you, if there is something that is capable of more than one meaning or whether I am unclear. I think I have been crystal clear. Please tell me if I am not and tell me which part is unclear and what is unclear about that part. Or which parts, etc. TIA.

    The reason is that, although I think I am clear, I do not know whether I am or not, and would like to know if I am not so that I don't continue thinking I am clear if this is not in fact the case but instead that I rectify my own failings so that, by ensuring/helping ensure I am being clear myself, I can do exactly what I am asking others to do (outside of this thread - I think there is no need for preciseness/clarity over social conversation so-called small talk that is often on here as that is precisely such talk and it is not about accuracy, instead it is just conversational - so "good morning", you don't need to say whether morning runs from midnight to near midday or whether midnight to whatever is sunrise where you are is still overnight and therefore, as over"night" is night not morning, with morning starting only at daylight, or sunrise - good morning is a flamin' greeting and we don't need to know what morning precisely means but, myself, I am not saying good morning, except I am but you know what I mean, I am not just saying good morning, I am trying to explain things and want to know if I am not clear on anything*).

    Good morning!

    *Except obviously I don't mean literally on the "morning!" of my own greeting in this post that have have just said is an unclear word. In the context of the greeting, there is no lack of clarity (I hope!).
    I know "ensuring/helping ensure", you could say two meanings there. But "ensuring" is clear (I hope) and "helping ensure" is clear (again hopefully) and the meaning is both - I am ensuring I am clear when I am in fact clear, and I am helping ensure I am clear when, by maybe not previously being clear, helping ensure I am in future by asking and hopefully getting you (the global you, any of you) to tell me if I am not (at least in relation to this post - there is no ongoing request, but if at any time I am unclear, whether past or future not just this post, I don't mind anyone asking me about it and me hopefully getting time to answer whenever I am then next here (in other words, the first time I return to the thread after your post in which you ask me+)).
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 16-05-2019 at 12:35 AM. Reason: +Clarification sentence: I see a potential ambiguity in "then next here" so I clarify what I mean by it.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 16th May 19, 12:37 AM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    https://autismum.com/2012/05/07/10-tips-on-how-to-communicate-with-autistic-people/

    That page is actually a very good summary of the problems I have faced and, from time to time, face.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 16th May 19, 1:12 AM
    • 20,881 Posts
    • 268,926 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Actually, looking at the survey, self-selected respondents to a "consultation", that Council that made the law it is so far not willing to clarify what it has meant, it only received about 45 responses to its questionnaire, out of a population for the borough of about 80,000.

    So it went and introduced bans enforced by criminal law based on the views of about 0.05% of the population. Nice to know that a few people have dictated to and decided what the rest of the visitors to the town centre can or cannot do in future. Although what can or cannot be done is unclear on at least 7 counts to me, as all of those prohibitions are vague and ambiguous. And then it refuses to tell me.

    It's less likely that people who don't have concerns on matters the centre of the consultation would be responding to it. Hence why, I think, only 10% of respondents said it didn't concern them and why the figure of 90% based on a biased and self-selected sample seems to me highly unreliable and no basis on which to be making decisions that affect everyone that ever visits the area.

    The respondents don't like male youths (sexist and ageist), homeless people or beggars it seems from the responses. So, what I think they should do is ban male youths and fine homeless people on the streets and then imprison them - hopefully shift them anywhere except our borough, rather than trying to help the homeless and getting them into accommodation so that they don't need to be there by carrying out moral responsibilities regarding housing.

    It's just the whole lot is prejudiced attitudes of the respondents.
    EDIT: Oh, one does want them to find youth people and youths jobs and get them into activities. Which is not what a law creating criminal offences does. And since several of them complain about never seeing the police on the street anyway, we may doubt whether it will even be enforced even now it is passed. (83% said they thought of course that such a law would help. And the vast majority every time thought the law should be introduced to address … every activity that the Council asked whether it should in fact*. I agree. I think we should make all behaviour criminal. After all, everything annoys me.) I assume it has only good people, who pay attention to what they are told they now can't do, complying with that and stopping anything else they used to do as everyone has now been targeted by the Council, whilst the few causing trouble continue to do so.

    I saw some people on the streets today (my town centre another place in the country). They caused absolutely no problem at all to me - they were just there, causing no interference with anyone and, whilst one did speak a couple of times, they were entirely reasonable on both of them and did not pester or threaten anyone.

    EDIT 2: Just looking further at the responses - there are a lot of other suggestions, but no idea whether any of them, which don't involve criminal laws, have been done. More derogatory prejudice as well - "remove anything related to [certain specific individuals]". I am beginning to conclude there are actually a lot of prejudiced people around, and not decent people around after all.

    It's an attitude of - they haven't said this but this is what they mean - "we don't want that type".

    EDIT 3: They were, on the whole, satisfied with the content of the, at that time, proposed law. Well, on several grounds regarding compliance with central government guidance, I am not satisfied. I am probably being over-picky. However, the few public that respond know virtually nothing. Actually, one of them did make good comments (that seems to be a minority not satisfied - perhaps an organisation responding to the consultation that actually knew what it was talking about). One thought that areas were actually relatively safe but that one activity, which is currently illegal (drug-taking), was "acceptable" (their word). Again it just shows. I do not condone illegal behaviour. I suppose content means not just the wording (essential if people are to know what they can't do) but the range of what is covered (which does step into things wider than I have seen elsewhere). We are perfectly fine - we know what most things are - but what is "misuse" of a bicycle? Does that mean merely not keeping it sparkling clean at all times? (It is not as daft as it may sound - there are other places elsewhere that define terms as meaning things that you would not usually expect, so I am needing to check that they haven't got some unusual idea as to what we are supposed not to do.)

    Everyone else: Do you what us to cover this? Yes/No
    Savvybuyer: What does that mean?

    I should have done this before, but in fact I did not. Should have spoiled my referendum paper by asking what both "remain" and "leave" meant. Would have made no difference anyway, as I voted "remain" (whatever that meant) so lost. Had I written those questions, I would have been about the only person right ever since. In fact, I did not vote remain whatever that meant. I voted remain in the way I understood it meant - which was for no change to the position at all but for any negotiations that from time to time were going to happen as a member of the EU, to continue as they would have done had the referendum not taken place. So they could have set up new EU bodies and joined them if that was going to happen anyway or left ones that they decided were no longer to exist (although not abolish the EU entirely) and that would still have been "remain" according to me. That's what I meant.

    *Figures often in middle to high 90%s, lowest is one of around 80%, a couple of activities 100% think it should be ban.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 16-05-2019 at 10:47 AM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,509Posts Today

6,420Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I once blurted out on @gmb "Theresa May hasn't been given a poisoned chalice - she's been given a poisoned chalice? https://t.co/onfRbY3XVg

  • It'd be fascinating to know how history will judge Theresa May's premiership. Currently, it is hard to see it as a? https://t.co/eH77G0O9LA

  • Are you secretly trying to tell us Geri is going to take over? Will she tell us what we want, what we really reall? https://t.co/MOxa0jzPD7

  • Follow Martin