Agent_C

It was the fact that she had a trolley full of shopping that was particularly odd - not exactly the perfect thing to make a quick getaway!

We were at the tills there a few weeks ago when my OH felt someone go into his back pocket. Only he kept a packet of tissues in there rather than his wallet. He turned round and saw a woman walking off holding something - the tissues had gone; bet the culprit was disappointed with what she got! We followed the woman out and she just looked like a normal middle-aged woman doing her shopping, and we actually wondered whether he was mistaken and maybe she was trying to cop a feel of his backside instead... but I guess it goes to show that the most unlikely people could be pickpockets, so watch out!

Yesterday my bus journey to work (5 miles) took 2 hours, and it took an hour coming back. I bought a First day saver for £4.20, so I think that's great value - just £1.40 for each hour of my time spent sitting on buses and (mainly) standing around in the cold!

Interesting - on New Year's Eve I was crossing the road by Walkley library, and waiting at the lights was a white flatbed transit with three men in. Their window was wound down and as I passed one of them started shouting personal abuse at me. I was really shocked as I hadn't done anything - I'm afraid that my instincts took over and I looked at him and loudly told him to f-off, which was met with loud jeers as they drove away. Sounds like it could be the same ones - I know from the previous thread that a similar scrap van has been spotted in S6 with depressing regularity.

In response to your first point: as I mentioned earlier, you can't avoid Page 3. I have seen it at work and on public transport, when people sitting near me are reading it. You wouldn't get someone reading a top shelf mag in a similar way. Its ubiquitousness and people's acceptance of it contributes to the notion that women's main purpose is for men's sexual gratification. In response to your second point: we now have more evidence as to the damage done by sexualised images of women in the media. Page 3 is just a small part of that, but it plays a part nonetheless.

It's not about whether any rules are being broken - that is a moot point because there are currently no laws banning Page 3 and its ilk and that is what we are debating. The question is whether we should have a proliferation of sexualised images of women, freely available on the lower shelves of any newsagents, when there is evidence that these images contribute to issues such as low self-esteem, body dysmorphia, eating disorders etc in many women, particularly younger ones. And whether the growing 'pornographication' of society is really a good thing. I would welcome some informed debate on this, but unfortunately the level of many people's comments seem to be along the lines of: I like looking at women's breasts, so that must make it OK, and anyone who disagrees is [insert random insult here, perhaps relating to prudishness, frigidity, or the need to get a life].

It's an oft-cited myth that women who object to things like Page 3 must be prudish and/or sexually uptight. But objecting to Page 3 is not about objecting to sex or to nudity. It's about objecting to sexualised images of women being commonplace and hard to avoid. In fact, I believe that if women were not surrounded by these images, telling them what they 'should' look or behave like, then we would actually have fewer hang-ups about our bodies and be more comfortable with nudity. Women do indeed have breasts and many men like looking at them. But it does not follow that sexualised images of women should be on display in 'family' newspapers.

I am extremely short-sighted and I couldn't believe that they could do me 2 pairs with designer frames for £90 - but they did, and with the thinnest-possible 1.9 glass lenses. These would have cost me £500 a pair in the high street. They are great quality and my vision is better with them than the usual plastic lenses - and bonus, they look like normal glasses not bottle tops!! There's a thread about the offer on the Moneysavingexpert forum, and some experts in the field have said that Asda must be making a loss on people with high prescriptions - so get down there quick if this applies to you as they may not keep it on for long.

Not quite as simple as you are suggesting. Because the Sun is a newspaper not a top shelf mag, it is hard to avoid it. Kids can pick it up in the newsagents; you could be sat next to someone on the bus or tram who is reading it. I have never bought a copy, but I have seen Page 3. This ubiquitousness means that it normalises the notion that women are to be valued primarily for their sexual attributes and their looks, which has been shown to lead to psychological difficulties in women, especially teenagers.

I worked in benefits so here are the facts: - The Habitual Residence Test applies to the majority of people coming to the UK from abroad. Unlike many Forum posters, it does not discriminate on the grounds of race or nationality. - Asylum seekers are able to claim an allowance, but this is usually after a spell in a detention centre and stringent tests to prove their claim. The amount they get is lower than the basic rate of JSA, which is the minimum amount the government has decided people need to live on. They get accommodated in areas where there is a surplus of accommodation, often because locals don't want to live there because of the location or the quality of the accommodation. - Illegal immigrants can't claim anything because to do so would alert the government to their presence, and deportation would follow. -There has never been a gay allowance!

Anyone know whether any chip shops are open in the Crookes/Walkley/Hillsborough areas on a Sunday lunchtime?

I tried to find our car on Langsett Road where we saw the Google car, but it was not there - though I did notice a poster for the C4 programme The Family, which was shown in September, so that puts it at late August/early September. They must have used an automated tool to blur the faces, as there is a poster near my office with a blurred face on - yet other faces are clearly visible! Including some dodgy looking people loitering by our building's front door!

I think many would agree with you that every homeless person is vulnerable, but unfortunately the law doesn't take that viewpoint and so has to have some way of differentiating between the vulnerable and the really vulnerable. Council housing is hard to get everywhere, with councils building few new properties and many going into private ownership thanks to Thatcher's Right to Buy. So it now has to act as a safety net for the most vulnerable in society, and is no longer a cheap, reliable option for most people.

Dies he get Income Support because of a health problem, or is it Jobseekers Allowance? Either way, he can apply for help to pay the rent - called Local Housing Allowance nowadays. He will get a flat rate of this so would need to find a property at the same or less rent (if it's less, he can keep up to £15 a week of the allowance). The council should be able to tell him what rate he'll get.

The council would only have a duty to house him if he fell into a 'priority need' category. That could include: - being 16 or 17 or over 60 - having a health condition - having a dependent child with him - being vulnerable for other reasons. Contrary to popular belief, most people subject to immigration control are NOT eligible for council help, not even the basic advice and assistance that most people would be entitled to. Asylum seekers can't apply as homeless either; although there will usually be a duty to provide them with accommodation it is often in a special centre and the accommodation is usually very poor; the money they get is also below what the government claims is the minimum needed to live on. Being pregnant would put a person in a priority category; whether drug or alcohol addiction would would depend on the circumstances, but often not. The council would have a duty to give advice to your friend, and he can also go on the waiting list. If he is working, private landlords would probably be a better bet - there is no shortage of rental property at the moment. He could also contact Shelter on 0808 800 4444 or try NOMAD on Rockingham Street.

No, nowt to do with the club.

The lower end, down the hill.

I wouldn't worry - I only live 3 doors down from the house in question and I'm not worried.

I missed all this but my neighbour informed me that they'd done a raid on a house a few doors down and arrested someone. They blocked off the road at either end and even had dogs at the back of the houses so they couldn't do a runner. Haven't heard any more though.

I've used http://www.spaandhotelbreak.co.uk to book some great-value 2 day spa breaks at Risley Hall in Derbyshire - they do do spa days as well, although the only one listed for Sheffield is St Paul's. There are a few fairly nearby though. They are also on eBay, and I found this was the cheapest way to bokk as they charge a credit card fee through the website.

When I lived in Woodseats, Poseidon was my chippery of choice. Now I'm in Walkley, I rate Codrophenia.

It's the same in the post office queue on a weekday lunchtime - when I'm spending most of my lunch break queueing, it doesn't amuse me when half the queue is made up of people who could go at any time, eg pensioners and people with children! I was also not best pleased to be held up one time by a guy who was checking whether his dole money had gone through and was wearing a t-shirt with a slogan that said 'Taxpayers: Work harder! People on benefits are depending on you!'

Thanks all - I have done some research and it does appear that they would have a very hard time trying to get any money out of me in the small claims court, even without the evidence that there was a sign saying it was OK to park there. I will write to them asking them to either not bother me again, or take me to court.

Indeed - though they do have a car park at the new Screwfix and hopefully it won't always be as busy as when I went, which was opening weekend and they were offering 10% off. There's an interesting article here about private parking charges: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=ibwiki&cmd=article&id=56

Thanks - I understand that it's a civil offence (trespass) rather than a criminal offence, so the worst thing they could do is take me to the county court. But I wouldn't want a county court judgement against me. I think I would have a case in court if I can show that there was a sign saying it was OK to park there - but it would need to rely on more than just my evidence.