On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:33:03 PM UTC+1, Penny wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 22:13:24 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> scrawled in
> the dust...
> >Getting back to your original point John.
> >
> >Is there no place for Caveat Emptor?
> >The more guardrails that are put in place, the less capable people seem
> >to be of taking care of themselves.
> Nice analogy.
> Whenever I see recent photos, or visit an old castle, I am amazed by the
> amount of signage and guardrails. On family holidays in my youth we visited
> a lot of castles. Within a few minutes of our arrival, Bro#1 would be
> waving to us from the battlements having climbed straight up the wall. It
> scared me a bit, but as our parents didn't seem too bothered, I got used to
> it. I don't recall Bros#2 and 3 following him up the walls, but they all
> scaled at least on of the stones at Avebury. I stuck to climbing trees ....
> and usually needed help getting down again.

Hear, hear. (As I said in reply to Sam's follow-up.) IMO children of all ages (0-99) need exposure to mild hazards to gain the experience to negotiate major hazards later in life.

Not quite the same thing because exposing babies to any sort of hazard is a no-no IMO but some people I know in the USA have just bought a car seat for their little one. The level of protection it provides is immense and it weighs over thirty kilos. (That's 66lbs in old money) I presume it provides protection on the billiard-ball principle that because its mass is greater than the forty-foot truck bearing down on it, it's the goods vehicle that's going to sustain all the damage.

On the other hand, it does cost several thousands of dollars. So for that money I think I would insist that it should have been made by Joo Janta, the folks who made the Model 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses. I presume then that it exists five seconds ahead on the space-time continuum and deploys airbags all round in advance of a detected collision.

Nick
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:59:07 AM UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <0PXyM.406943$mPI2....@fx15.iad> at Fri, 4 Aug 2023
> 01:41:31, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes
<snip>
> >>> Getting back to your original point John.
> >>>
> >>> Is there no place for Caveat Emptor?
> Yes, I agree - but only to some extent. If the emptor has to read fine
> print (in this case, the ingredients list), I think it's going too far:
> if I buy something called "tropical drink", I don't expect it to be 77%
> apple, and don't think I should have to read the ingredients list to
> find that out. Or "pineapple and coconut juice" only to contain 15% and
> 5% of those ingredients. Sure, _some_ things _can_ be allowed to be
> misleading, and where you draw the line is always arguable.
<snip>

I refer the honourable member to The Fruit Juices and Fruit Nectars (England) Regulations 2013 which define a fruit juice exactly. There is a get-out-of-jail-free card (sorry) in the word "Drink" If the title of the product includes the word "drink" then all bets are off with respect to what the product contains and a detailed read of the list of ingredients is called for.

Nick
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 01:03:15 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell
<nickodell@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:59:07?AM UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <0PXyM.406943$mPI2....@fx15.iad> at Fri, 4 Aug 2023
>> 01:41:31, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes
><snip>
>> >>> Getting back to your original point John.
>> >>>
>> >>> Is there no place for Caveat Emptor?
>> Yes, I agree - but only to some extent. If the emptor has to read fine
>> print (in this case, the ingredients list), I think it's going too far:
>> if I buy something called "tropical drink", I don't expect it to be 77%
>> apple, and don't think I should have to read the ingredients list to
>> find that out. Or "pineapple and coconut juice" only to contain 15% and
>> 5% of those ingredients. Sure, _some_ things _can_ be allowed to be
>> misleading, and where you draw the line is always arguable.
><snip>
>
>I refer the honourable member to The Fruit Juices and Fruit Nectars (England) Regulations 2013 which define a fruit juice exactly. There is a get-out-of-jail-free card (sorry) in the word "Drink" If the title of the product includes the word "drink" then all bets are off with respect to what the product contains and a detailed read of the list of ingredients is called for.
>
>Nick
>nickodell49@yahoo.ca

Is Natrasha still the owner of a juice firm? We never hear of her
having to do any work to manage that.

On 03/08/2023 22:13, Sam Plusnet wrote:

<snip>
>
> Getting back to your original point John.
>
> Is there no place for Caveat Emptor?
> The more guardrails that are put in place, the less capable people seem
> to be of taking care of themselves.
>

But what of the less-capable people?

Anyway, Rose's Lime Juice Cordial contains 5% lime juice. Unless you
buy it in New Zealand, where it has 32% lime juice.

--
Cheers
Clive

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 00:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nickodell@bigfoot.com>
scrawled in the dust...

>Apparently, the reason why people can see more clearly in bright light (apart from the light being brighter) is that the light stimulates the pupils and they shrink to a smaller aperture, thereby sharpening the image.
>
>You can force a smaller aperture simply by rolling up your index finger and thumb and peering through the tiny little hole in between. It works. I can see things much more sharply that way. But I don't half look an idiot in the supermarket when I try to do that. That's why I squint at things just like everybody else. Maybe I should invest in some fake sunglasses and pierce them with pinhole apertures?

You can buy those, I have a pair. The holes are about 1.5mm (I needed
reading glasses to figure that out). If I keep still, they sharpen my view
of the garden from my desk, but are no help reading the 4pt print on a
bottle of vitamin B12. I think the print size on food labels has to be
larger than that - it really should apply to 'medicines' too, some of us
have nasty reactions to certain ingredients. I was told the other day that
one of the antibiotics in common use (which I already knew I couldn't take)
now contains a colour (E number, not sure which) thereby excluding its use
for more people.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 10:16:40 +0100, Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

>On 03/08/2023 22:13, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>> Getting back to your original point John.
>>
>> Is there no place for Caveat Emptor?
>> The more guardrails that are put in place, the less capable people seem
>> to be of taking care of themselves.
>>
>
>But what of the less-capable people?
>
>Anyway, Rose's Lime Juice Cordial contains 5% lime juice. Unless you
>buy it in New Zealand, where it has 32% lime juice.

What about these homeopathetic "cures" or whatever they call themselves:
0% this 0% that 100% water.

--
Regards, Paul Herber
https://www.paulherber.co.uk/

In message
<ecopci9f24p3nea5gekhnrri9e67gbq43e@news.eternal-september.org> at Fri,
4 Aug 2023 12:33:00, Paul Herber <paul@paulherber.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 10:16:40 +0100, Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:
[]
>>But what of the less-capable people?
>>
>>Anyway, Rose's Lime Juice Cordial contains 5% lime juice. Unless you
>>buy it in New Zealand, where it has 32% lime juice.

I guess we must cordially suggest that "Cordial" is another weasel word.
>
>What about these homeopathetic "cures" or whatever they call themselves:
>0% this 0% that 100% water.
>
Ah, well, if you're into those (what do they dilute the water with?),
you're into Da Vinci Code territory. Wanna buy a bridge?
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After all is said and done, usually more is said.

In message <eb756671-db84-4ec5-af8f-ef6ec06a772an@googlegroups.com> at
Fri, 4 Aug 2023 01:03:15, Nick Odell <nickodell@bigfoot.com> writes
[]
>I refer the honourable member to The Fruit Juices and Fruit Nectars
>(England) Regulations 2013 which define a fruit juice exactly. There is
>a get-out-of-jail-free card (sorry) in the word "Drink" If the title of

Ah, so "drink" is similar to "style", "flavour" etc., as one of the
escape words.

>the product includes the word "drink" then all bets are off with
>respect to what the product contains and a detailed read of the list of
>ingredients is called for.
[]
After my prodding, I receive a reply from the TS man:

"Good morning
Morrisons has advised that the product is now delisted, so I'm not
pursuing the enquiry any further with them. Morrisons pointed out that
their labelling approach is the same as the brand leader (Tropicana). I
have asked the local Trading Standards for Tropicana for their thoughts
on the label."

So, arguably a tiny result, but strong indication that nobody's doing
anything. I've told him about the product now in front of me (Naturis,
which is one of Lidl's): "Tropical Juice". 72% Apple Juice.

No "drink", no "flavour". And I don't think "a reasonable person" would
consider apple to be "Tropical". (Next down is peach, 8%, and I'm not
sure about that either.) Quite apart from those with apple allergy, who
might not assume "Tropical Juice" to contain _mostly_ apple.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

User Error: Replace user, hit any key to continue.

In message <2cfpcih6hvugf1esm905igd7p262o0fvk5@4ax.com> at Fri, 4 Aug
2023 10:19:47, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 00:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell <nickodell@bigfoot.com>
>scrawled in the dust...
>
>>Apparently, the reason why people can see more clearly in bright light
>>(apart from the light being brighter) is that the light stimulates the
>>pupils and they shrink to a smaller aperture, thereby sharpening the
>>image.

My last optician told me that; he made analogy to photography - a
smaller aperture gives greater depth of field.
>>
>>You can force a smaller aperture simply by rolling up your index
>>finger and thumb and peering through the tiny little hole in between.
>>It works. I can see things much more sharply that way. But I don't

Same here.

>>half look an idiot in the supermarket when I try to do that. That's

I'm not that averse to looking an idiot (I wear shorts and sandals most
of the year, for a start), but for some reason can't remember doing
that: must try to remember. Though I keep a pair of cheap reading
glasses (the type that's in a tube) in my breast pocket anyway.

>>why I squint at things just like everybody else. Maybe I should invest
>>in some fake sunglasses and pierce them with pinhole apertures?
>
>You can buy those, I have a pair. The holes are about 1.5mm (I needed
>reading glasses to figure that out). If I keep still, they sharpen my view
>of the garden from my desk, but are no help reading the 4pt print on a
>bottle of vitamin B12. I think the print size on food labels has to be
>larger than that - it really should apply to 'medicines' too, some of us

Agreed.

>have nasty reactions to certain ingredients. I was told the other day that
>one of the antibiotics in common use (which I already knew I couldn't take)
>now contains a colour (E number, not sure which) thereby excluding its use
>for more people.

I agree, the addition of such - at least without extensive publicity -
is a Bad Thing. I _don't_ hate E numbers, though: I always thought they
were a great idea - the only reason for the hatred I can see is
xenophobia (because the E comes from Europe), possibly added to general
hatred of technology (some feeling that because it's a number, it's by
definition more dangerous, less "natural" - which is silly, because lots
of "natural" ingredients have E numbers [I'm not sure if even water has
one]). Like the DHMO scares ... (-:

Other than perhaps medicines, you hardly ever see E numbers nowadays in
ingredients lists - the chemicals are named. Presumably _because_ of the
prejudice against the numbers.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After all is said and done, usually more is said.

On 04/08/2023 08:35, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:22:27 PM UTC+1, Penny wrote:
>
>> **I've been short sighted most of my life - aggravated, I'm told, by doing
>> a lot of 'close-work'. Over the past couple of years I have found I can no
>> longer read the small print on packaging. It's a bit of a shock as I've
>> been used to removing my specs to read. Digital photography is a wonderful
>> thing, I can photograph the labels and zoom in on the result to check for
>> ingredients I don't want to risk. We, in particular young mothers, did a
>> great job in the '80s and '90s to get ingredient lists improved and
>> legislated for.
>
> Apparently, the reason why people can see more clearly in bright light (apart from the light being brighter) is that the light stimulates the pupils and they shrink to a smaller aperture, thereby sharpening the image.
>
> You can force a smaller aperture simply by rolling up your index finger and thumb and peering through the tiny little hole in between. It works. I can see things much more sharply that way. But I don't half look an idiot in the supermarket when I try to do that. That's why I squint at things just like everybody else. Maybe I should invest in some fake sunglasses and pierce them with pinhole apertures?
>
> Nick
> nickodell49@yahoo.ca

It is because of a refraction error called spherical abberation which
means that parallel rays of light do not come to a point focus (with
similar lack of sharpness for non-parallel rays). Spherical abberation
is less if the aperture is reduced, hence the effect Nick mentions.
When I was a teenager, I couldn't see the blackboard clearly because my
eyes were short-sighted, so I used to do what Nick describes until
someone noticed and i was prescribed spectacles.

Mike Ruddock

John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 02/08/2023 15:22, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>> If I buy a tin of Baked Beans I expect it to contain Baked Beans and I
>> suspect there is a legal requirement that it does.  Likewise, Mandarin
>> Orange Segments  or Raspberry Jam.
>>
>> However I have just heartily enjoyed a lunch of "Bison Pate with Fried
>> Onions" (1) on toast.  On reading the list of ingredients I find that
>> the pate (2) contains 27% Chicken Liver, a total of 37% Pork products,
>> 20% Bison meat and a mere 1% Fried Onions (plus condiments, milk and
>> water.)
>>
>> How can that be legally described as "Bison Pate?  And I'd say "with
>> Fried Onions" is stretching it a bit.
>>
>> (1) Specially prepared for Cholmondeley Castle, in case you're wondering.
>>
>> (2) Sorry, I can't do accents on this mini keyboard.
>>
>>
> I see this post has already generated many replies, some humorous, but
> none particularly helpful.
>
> As you might expect, there are many regulations concerning food sold in
> the UK. Here's a good place to start looking:
>
> https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/packaging-and-labelling#:~:text=Food%20businesses%20must%20include%20a,that%20has%20imported%20the%20food
>
> Not very far in to this morass of information we read, "The name of the
> food must be clearly stated on the packaging and not be misleading."
>
> Further down, we see this:
>
> "Food authenticity
> Food authenticity is when food matches its description. Labelling is
> regulated to protect consumers who should have the correct information
> to make confident and informed food choices based on diet, allergies,
> personal taste or cost."
>
> Prima facie, I think you might have a good case. Trading Standards are
> the chaps to get in touch with.
>
> In the 70s and 80s I worked in food processing companies and a food
> packaging supplier, hence my interest. I remember being amused to see,
> on a tin of boiled ham, a picture of the ham garnished with a sprig of
> parsley. That had to bear the caption, "Serving Suggestion", just in
> case someone thought there might be parsley in the tin.
>

I noticed Lidl Tropical contains *carrot*!!!

Mrs McT

Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 01:03:15 -0700 (PDT), Nick Odell
> <nickodell@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:59:07?AM UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <0PXyM.406943$mPI2....@fx15.iad> at Fri, 4 Aug 2023
>>> 01:41:31, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes
>> <snip>
>>>>>> Getting back to your original point John.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there no place for Caveat Emptor?
>>> Yes, I agree - but only to some extent. If the emptor has to read fine
>>> print (in this case, the ingredients list), I think it's going too far:
>>> if I buy something called "tropical drink", I don't expect it to be 77%
>>> apple, and don't think I should have to read the ingredients list to
>>> find that out. Or "pineapple and coconut juice" only to contain 15% and
>>> 5% of those ingredients. Sure, _some_ things _can_ be allowed to be
>>> misleading, and where you draw the line is always arguable.
>> <snip>
>>
>> I refer the honourable member to The Fruit Juices and Fruit Nectars
>> (England) Regulations 2013 which define a fruit juice exactly. There is a
>> get-out-of-jail-free card (sorry) in the word "Drink" If the title of
>> the product includes the word "drink" then all bets are off with respect
>> to what the product contains and a detailed read of the list of ingredients is called for.
>>
>> Nick
>> nickodell49@yahoo.ca
>
> Is Natrasha still the owner of a juice firm? We never hear of her
> having to do any work to manage that.
>

Once or twice references to her maternity leave cover person but she’ll go
back now the twins are one. Or sell it up.

Mrs McT

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <eb756671-db84-4ec5-af8f-ef6ec06a772an@googlegroups.com> at
> Fri, 4 Aug 2023 01:03:15, Nick Odell <nickodell@bigfoot.com> writes
> []
>> I refer the honourable member to The Fruit Juices and Fruit Nectars
>> (England) Regulations 2013 which define a fruit juice exactly. There is
>> a get-out-of-jail-free card (sorry) in the word "Drink" If the title of
>
> Ah, so "drink" is similar to "style", "flavour" etc., as one of the
> escape words.
>
>> the product includes the word "drink" then all bets are off with
>> respect to what the product contains and a detailed read of the list of
>> ingredients is called for.
> []
> After my prodding, I receive a reply from the TS man:
>
> "Good morning
> Morrisons has advised that the product is now delisted, so I'm not
> pursuing the enquiry any further with them. Morrisons pointed out that
> their labelling approach is the same as the brand leader (Tropicana). I
> have asked the local Trading Standards for Tropicana for their thoughts
> on the label."
>
> So, arguably a tiny result, but strong indication that nobody's doing
> anything. I've told him about the product now in front of me (Naturis,
> which is one of Lidl's): "Tropical Juice". 72% Apple Juice.
>
> No "drink", no "flavour". And I don't think "a reasonable person" would
> consider apple to be "Tropical". (Next down is peach, 8%, and I'm not
> sure about that either.) Quite apart from those with apple allergy, who
> might not assume "Tropical Juice" to contain _mostly_ apple.

Don’t forget *carrot* hardly a fruit, never mind tropical.

Mrs McT

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:41:35 AM UTC+1, Sam Plusnet wrote:
<snip>
> That reminded me of proto-wofe climbing a tree whilst wearing a mini-skirt.
> She hadn't anticipated a troop of boy scouts passing by.
<snip>

So was she climbing the tree to get away from the boy scouts?
That's not always a successful ploy: boy scouts can climb trees too.

Nick
nickodell49@yahoo.ca

In message <uaj39b$1aej1$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 4 Aug 2023 14:51:23,
Chris <chris.mcmillan@ntlworld.com> writes
>John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[]
>> Not very far in to this morass of information we read, "The name of the
>> food must be clearly stated on the packaging and not be misleading."
[]
>I noticed Lidl Tropical contains *carrot*!!!
>
>Mrs McT
>
The one in front of me is
NATURIS
Truly Juicy
NOT from
CONCENTRATE
Tropical Juice

1 litre, barcode 4 056489 238942 >

and _doesn't_ contain carrot. (77% apple, 8% peach, 5% banana, 5%
passion fruit, 4.5% pineapple, 3.5% mango, 2% orange.*)

I also buy the 2 litre one, that _doesn't_ say not from concentrate so I
presume it is: I alternate between the "Tropical" and "Summer Fruits"
one, and it's the latter I have in my 'fridge at the moment. But I see
that (so I presume the Tropical too) is "Juice Drink", and we've already
been told if it has "Drink" in the title, all bets are off.

* Actually, Every Word Is Capitalised (Including Juice And Puree, Which
I Didn't Type. Worst case of "Title Case" I've seen.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

In 1969, Britain had towns full of soot, blackened buildings, and half the
population had no TV or cars - or inside loos. - James Burke, RT 2019/7/6-12

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 10:16:40 +0100, Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>Anyway, Rose's Lime Juice Cordial contains 5% lime juice. Unless you
>buy it in New Zealand, where it has 32% lime juice.

I wonder what else is in it, apart from lime juice. It could well be
watered down lime juice concentrate.

I do know it used to arrive in barrels at the Roses factory by barge
(narrowboat) along the Grand Union Canal, cos I used to help open and close
the lock gates on the Kings Langley stretch. I wonder where my parents
thought I was... I couldn't hear the cow bell calling me home from down
there.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 04-Aug-23 16:09, Chris wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> In message <eb756671-db84-4ec5-af8f-ef6ec06a772an@googlegroups.com> at
>> Fri, 4 Aug 2023 01:03:15, Nick Odell <nickodell@bigfoot.com> writes
>> []
>>> I refer the honourable member to The Fruit Juices and Fruit Nectars
>>> (England) Regulations 2013 which define a fruit juice exactly. There is
>>> a get-out-of-jail-free card (sorry) in the word "Drink" If the title of
>>
>> Ah, so "drink" is similar to "style", "flavour" etc., as one of the
>> escape words.
>>
>>> the product includes the word "drink" then all bets are off with
>>> respect to what the product contains and a detailed read of the list of
>>> ingredients is called for.
>> []
>> After my prodding, I receive a reply from the TS man:
>>
>> "Good morning
>> Morrisons has advised that the product is now delisted, so I'm not
>> pursuing the enquiry any further with them. Morrisons pointed out that
>> their labelling approach is the same as the brand leader (Tropicana). I
>> have asked the local Trading Standards for Tropicana for their thoughts
>> on the label."
>>
>> So, arguably a tiny result, but strong indication that nobody's doing
>> anything. I've told him about the product now in front of me (Naturis,
>> which is one of Lidl's): "Tropical Juice". 72% Apple Juice.
>>
>> No "drink", no "flavour". And I don't think "a reasonable person" would
>> consider apple to be "Tropical". (Next down is peach, 8%, and I'm not
>> sure about that either.) Quite apart from those with apple allergy, who
>> might not assume "Tropical Juice" to contain _mostly_ apple.
>
> Don’t forget *carrot* hardly a fruit, never mind tropical.

But if they added tomato, you wouldn't have any grounds for complaint.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 04-Aug-23 16:52, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:41:35 AM UTC+1, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> <snip>
>> That reminded me of proto-wofe climbing a tree whilst wearing a mini-skirt.
>> She hadn't anticipated a troop of boy scouts passing by.
> <snip>
>
> So was she climbing the tree to get away from the boy scouts?
> That's not always a successful ploy: boy scouts can climb trees too.

If she had known that Scouts were in the offing, the tree would have
remained unconquered.

(No, it wasn't a Horse Chestnut.)

--
Sam Plusnet

On 04-Aug-23 14:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I'm not that averse to looking an idiot (I wear shorts and sandals most
> of the year, for a start),

John, Have you considered becoming a Postman?
You seem to have the uniform already.

(I too mostly wear sandals - with socks if I feel so inclined.)

but for some reason can't remember doing
> that: must try to remember. Though I keep a pair of cheap reading
> glasses (the type that's in a tube) in my breast pocket anyway.

For many years I have only had to wear glasses when driving. I could
manage everything else, reasonably well, without.

I'm now at the point where I really need to carry reading glasses with
me, but I hate the idea - and tend to 'forget'.

I mostly manage by having half a dozen pairs of cheap reading glasses
scattered around the house, the caravan, the car... etc.

--
Sam Plusnet

In message <KMczM.336467$mIIb.181207@fx11.ams1> at Fri, 4 Aug 2023
20:59:38, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>On 04-Aug-23 14:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I'm not that averse to looking an idiot (I wear shorts and sandals
>>most of the year, for a start),
>
>John, Have you considered becoming a Postman?
>You seem to have the uniform already.

More than you might think; some years before I left, they changed the
company shirt design, and sold off some of the old ones for charity - I
went to the office that was selling them, and found they had five in my
size, so offered a tenner, and she nearly took my arm off (apparently
they hadn't had many takers); I'm still not sure whether I should have
offered less and got a better bargain, or offered more as it was for
charity. Anyway, where was I - oh yes, I have five good-quality blue
shirts, with little red tags (the company name), and have more than once
been asked if I'm ex-post-office when wearing them.
>
>(I too mostly wear sandals - with socks if I feel so inclined.)
>
>
>but for some reason can't remember doing
>> that: must try to remember. Though I keep a pair of cheap reading
>>glasses (the type that's in a tube) in my breast pocket anyway.
>
>For many years I have only had to wear glasses when driving. I could
>manage everything else, reasonably well, without.

At my last eye test, he said I should, though I feel I can see well
enough without. I do though.
>
>I'm now at the point where I really need to carry reading glasses with
>me, but I hate the idea - and tend to 'forget'.
>
>I mostly manage by having half a dozen pairs of cheap reading glasses
>scattered around the house, the caravan, the car... etc.
>
I don't really need them for normal use (such as reading my laptop
screen as I am now) - mainly for very fine work, or very small print
(especially if in bad light). [The ecologists won't like me - I'm more
likely to turn on a light than dig out glasses. (It is an LED light.)]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

When I went to see Biddy Baxter [Blue Peter's editor] and told her I was
pregnant, her first reaction was 'Oh good, another viewer'. - Janet Ellis, RT
2016/2/27-3/4

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 20:59:38 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> scrawled in
the dust...

>On 04-Aug-23 14:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I'm not that averse to looking an idiot (I wear shorts and sandals most
>> of the year, for a start),
>
>John, Have you considered becoming a Postman?
>You seem to have the uniform already.
>
>(I too mostly wear sandals - with socks if I feel so inclined.)
>
>
>but for some reason can't remember doing
>> that: must try to remember. Though I keep a pair of cheap reading
>> glasses (the type that's in a tube) in my breast pocket anyway.
>
>For many years I have only had to wear glasses when driving. I could
>manage everything else, reasonably well, without.
>
>I'm now at the point where I really need to carry reading glasses with
>me, but I hate the idea - and tend to 'forget'.
>
>I mostly manage by having half a dozen pairs of cheap reading glasses
>scattered around the house, the caravan, the car... etc.

Ray had a hoard of cheap reading glasses when I met him. Only one of his
eyes worked so there was no problem with catering for both eyes. He often
wore two pairs at a time, creating a bifocal effect. As a navigator on car
journeys, he was unwilling to wear the double set so was not very helpful
as he couldn't cope with reading the map, the road signs and road names.
When I finally persuaded him to take an eye test and get some actual
bifocals, the optician said his double specs were pretty much spot on for
his prescription.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 04/08/2023 19:49, Penny wrote:
> I couldn't hear the cow bell calling me home from down
> there.

My siblings and I were called home with a cow bell too. I think a lot
of the neighbours with children were glad of it too! I think it came
from Chamonix in about 1950 and my still has it.
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <uaj39b$1aej1$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 4 Aug 2023 14:51:23,
> Chris <chris.mcmillan@ntlworld.com> writes
>> John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> []
>>> Not very far in to this morass of information we read, "The name of the
>>> food must be clearly stated on the packaging and not be misleading."
> []
>> I noticed Lidl Tropical contains *carrot*!!!
>>
>> Mrs McT
>>
> The one in front of me is
> NATURIS
> Truly Juicy
> NOT from
> CONCENTRATE
> Tropical Juice
>
> 1 litre, barcode 4 056489 238942 >
>
> and _doesn't_ contain carrot. (77% apple, 8% peach, 5% banana, 5%
> passion fruit, 4.5% pineapple, 3.5% mango, 2% orange.*)
>
> I also buy the 2 litre one, that _doesn't_ say not from concentrate so I
> presume it is: I alternate between the "Tropical" and "Summer Fruits"
> one, and it's the latter I have in my 'fridge at the moment. But I see
> that (so I presume the Tropical too) is "Juice Drink", and we've already
> been told if it has "Drink" in the title, all bets are off.
>
> * Actually, Every Word Is Capitalised (Including Juice And Puree, Which
> I Didn't Type. Worst case of "Title Case" I've seen.)

Interesting. Naturis Family pack, a deep orange carton with the central
area in cream. But its not the same design as the Naturis Apple juice.

Mrs McT

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <KMczM.336467$mIIb.181207@fx11.ams1> at Fri, 4 Aug 2023
> 20:59:38, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>> On 04-Aug-23 14:53, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> I'm not that averse to looking an idiot (I wear shorts and sandals
>>> most of the year, for a start),
>>
>> John, Have you considered becoming a Postman?
>> You seem to have the uniform already.
>
> More than you might think; some years before I left, they changed the
> company shirt design, and sold off some of the old ones for charity - I
> went to the office that was selling them, and found they had five in my
> size, so offered a tenner, and she nearly took my arm off (apparently
> they hadn't had many takers); I'm still not sure whether I should have
> offered less and got a better bargain, or offered more as it was for
> charity. Anyway, where was I - oh yes, I have five good-quality blue
> shirts, with little red tags (the company name), and have more than once
> been asked if I'm ex-post-office when wearing them.
>>
>> (I too mostly wear sandals - with socks if I feel so inclined.)
>>
>>
>> but for some reason can't remember doing
>>> that: must try to remember. Though I keep a pair of cheap reading
>>> glasses (the type that's in a tube) in my breast pocket anyway.
>>
>> For many years I have only had to wear glasses when driving. I could
>> manage everything else, reasonably well, without.
>
> At my last eye test, he said I should, though I feel I can see well
> enough without. I do though.
>>
>> I'm now at the point where I really need to carry reading glasses with
>> me, but I hate the idea - and tend to 'forget'.
>>
>> I mostly manage by having half a dozen pairs of cheap reading glasses
>> scattered around the house, the caravan, the car... etc.
>>
> I don't really need them for normal use (such as reading my laptop
> screen as I am now) - mainly for very fine work, or very small print
> (especially if in bad light). [The ecologists won't like me - I'm more
> likely to turn on a light than dig out glasses. (It is an LED light.)]

I’m sitting here with my Lidl lamp on!

Mrs McT

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 23:05:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>[The ecologists won't like me - I'm more
>likely to turn on a light than dig out glasses. (It is an LED light.)]

I have a strong dislike for LED light. It's ok in small doses in the garden
on various little solar displays, but not indoors. Far too bright for me,
it triggers migraine. When I first ventured into the new Aldi here I swore
'never again'. I have been in since, but only when wearing one of my big
sun visors to shield me from the over-bright lights in the roof.

I was horrified to find, when I needed to replace a lightbulb, it was very
difficult to find one which was not LED. I have a large hoard of 'low
energy' bulbs from the noughties but they are all bayonet style, mostly
large. The only new light fittings I put in in this house take small screw
fitting bulbs. Even replacing one of the long tubes in the kitchen was
tricky, they've gone LED too. When the normal fluorescents disappear, it
will mean putting in new fittings. Ho hum, the long life bulbs do last a
long time - I hope they see me out.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959