action against Argos on faulty goods
johngood_____
down invariably not long after the one year warranty period has expired. I
dont know if its true, but a Japanese told me that manufacturers are
actually beginning to design stuff to do this.
Just over a year ago we bought a 'Energiser' battery charger from Argos to
charge torch batteries. Yep... its gone down, yet was only used three or
four times. I know it only cost Ł10 but I want to take them to task if I
can.
What action might I take with Argos, since I'm fed up that they can just
say, "its a year", so tough luck. Thanks for any advice.
martin_p...@hotmail.com
> I'm really fed up with the amount of our electrical goods that have broken
> down invariably not long after the one year warranty period has expired. I
> dont know if its true, but a Japanese told me that manufacturers are
> actually beginning to design stuff to do this.
>
> Just over a year ago we bought a 'Energiser' battery charger from Argos to
> charge torch batteries. Yep... its gone down, yet was only used three or
> can.
>
> What action might I take with Argos, since I'm fed up that they can just
> say, "its a year", so tough luck. Thanks for any advice.
To use the time-honoured phrase, the one-year guarantee does not
affect your statutory rights. Your statutory rights include (under the
Sale of Goods Act) an implied condition in your contract with Argos
that the stuff you buy is of "satisfactory quality". If you can
convince a court (or Argos) that battery chargers which only work four
times are not of satisfactory quality then Argos has breached its
contract with you regardless of what the manufacturer's guarantee
says, and it owes you something (and the easiest solution for Argos
would be to give you another charger).
Obviously don't waste your time attempting this approach with the
people on the tills at Argos! You'd better write to head office.
By the way, apparently the system in Argos shops was deliberately
designed to be as close to a dole office as possible in order to make
their customers feel at home ;-)
mogga
wrote:
>I'm really fed up with the amount of our electrical goods that have broken
>down invariably not long after the one year warranty period has expired. I
>dont know if its true, but a Japanese told me that manufacturers are
>actually beginning to design stuff to do this.
>
>Just over a year ago we bought a 'Energiser' battery charger from Argos to
>charge torch batteries. Yep... its gone down, yet was only used three or
>four times. I know it only cost £10 but I want to take them to task if I
>can.
>
>What action might I take with Argos, since I'm fed up that they can just
>say, "its a year", so tough luck. Thanks for any advice.
>
Have you acutally turned up at the store and asked them?
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Mrcheerful
"johngood_____" <vo...@void.net> wrote in message
news:yUhYi.19305$6v....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> I'm really fed up with the amount of our electrical goods that have broken
> down invariably not long after the one year warranty period has expired. I
> dont know if its true, but a Japanese told me that manufacturers are
> actually beginning to design stuff to do this.
>
> Just over a year ago we bought a 'Energiser' battery charger from Argos to
> charge torch batteries. Yep... its gone down, yet was only used three or
>
> What action might I take with Argos, since I'm fed up that they can just
> say, "its a year", so tough luck. Thanks for any advice.
just buy another and return the first
Brian Gaff
you could prove that it is faulty manufacture.
I know, for example that Tesco will swap stuff well after the year. Its in
their interests to do so, after all. Often, the problem at Argos is the
staff where you bought it.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"johngood_____" <vo...@void.net> wrote in message
news:yUhYi.19305$6v....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> I'm really fed up with the amount of our electrical goods that have broken
> down invariably not long after the one year warranty period has expired. I
> dont know if its true, but a Japanese told me that manufacturers are
> actually beginning to design stuff to do this.
>
> Just over a year ago we bought a 'Energiser' battery charger from Argos to
> charge torch batteries. Yep... its gone down, yet was only used three or
> four times. I know it only cost £10 but I want to take them to task if I
Mustapha Phuq
> I don't think the year is valid these days, I think it depends very much if
> you could prove that it is faulty manufacture.
>
> I know, for example that Tesco will swap stuff well after the year. Its in
> their interests to do so, after all. Often, the problem at Argos is the
> staff where you bought it.
>
> Brian
>
> --
If it is no longer working after only a year would it be thought of as
reasonably durable?
I am thinking that it would not be.
--
Have a good sheikh this time!
BarryTaylor
> down invariably not long after the one year warranty period has expired. I
> dont know if its true, but a Japanese told me that manufacturers are
> actually beginning to design stuff to do this.
>
> Just over a year ago we bought a 'Energiser' battery charger from Argos to
> charge torch batteries. Yep... its gone down, yet was only used three or
>
> What action might I take with Argos, since I'm fed up that they can just
> say, "its a year", so tough luck. Thanks for any advice.
>
one, give it a week, then return the faulty one with the new receipt. You
can then get a refund and still have the good charger that you just bought.
Everyones a winner Bonne Da Douche, Petit pois and viva la mexico
Mustapha Phuq
> Everyones a winner Bonne Da Douche, Petit pois and viva la mexico
I am not understanding this please and nor will Narib effendi either!
--
Sheikh it some more!
MiniMeToo
"Signal" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:vuo3j3hc2rccl0u2n...@4ax.com...
> "johngood_____" <vo...@void.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm really fed up with the amount of our electrical goods that have broken
>>down invariably not long after the one year warranty period has expired. I
>>dont know if its true, but a Japanese told me that manufacturers are
>>actually beginning to design stuff to do this.
>>
>>Just over a year ago we bought a 'Energiser' battery charger from Argos to
>>charge torch batteries. Yep... its gone down, yet was only used three or
>>can.
>>
>>What action might I take with Argos, since I'm fed up that they can just
>>say, "its a year", so tough luck. Thanks for any advice.
>>
>
> under the pressure and give you the £10 back!
>
> Or you could just ask nicely at the store..
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
Take it back, they will give you another one, I have taken lots of things
back that were older then a year, even a Telly, they are really good about
it.
Lenie
rainandsnow
>> say, "its a year", so tough luck. Thanks for any advice.
>
> legal rights you have against the supplier.
NIKON didn't around 2 years ago when my Coolpix 2100 went wrong just out
of a years guarantee. They did reply to emails but would not help other
than direct me to a repair centre who wanted Ł60 to repair it.
rainandsnow
> account sounds very much like they did. Who was the seller/supplier of
> your camera and did you try to approach them for assistance or redress?
The camera failed at around 14 months. I did not contact retailer. I was
not aware then that I had any rights after 12 months.
we are the robots
<snip>
Just take it back and say you've only had it 'bout a week and haven't
got the receipt.
Works every time!
--
_ _ _/
/_|/ //_//_/
_/
Peter Crosland
>> just say, "its a year", so tough luck. Thanks for any advice.
>
> to you about any purchase '"its a year", so tough luck' or did you
> make that up?
AFAIK there is now a European Directive that gives a minimum consumer
guarantee of two years but I can't find the reference.
Peter Crosland
Rod Speed
> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> AFAIK there is now a European Directive that gives a minimum
>> consumer guarantee of two years but I can't find the reference.
>
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/1999/l_171/l_17119990707en00120016.pdf
> http://www.gkhlaw.com/content.asp?page=articles&article=Minimum_Warranty_Requirements
That second one clearly says that it isnt a 2 year warranty at all.
> but of course all directives are toothless without enacting national legislation.
Wrong.
rainandsnow
> johngood_____ wrote:
> <snip>
> Just take it back and say you've only had it 'bout a week and haven't
> got the receipt.
> Works every time!
But that is lying.
Mrcheerful
"rainandsnow" <therain...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5phnr5F...@mid.individual.net...
You feel aggrieved that it is out of warranty, here is a way to get the
warranty you feel you deserve without hurting anyone, Argos will get
refunded by the maker and you will have a new unit, no-one will have any
argument, win, win all round.
rainandsnow
Sadly lying is now acceptable behaviour. I'd prefer to live in a
society where the word of anyone could be trusted. - eg a policeman, a
politician, a teacher. Britain was once like that. Lying in public
office should be an offence IMHO. Is it acceptable when the end
justifies the means - eg when the police lie in order to catch a law
breaker?? I'd say no. Don't like being lied to?? Then don't lie.
martin_p...@hotmail.com
> > but of course all directives are toothless without enacting national legislation.
>
> Wrong.
Well I seem to recall that directives are directly effective against
"emanations of the state". Argos may look and work like a benefits
office, but it's nothing to do with the government as yet.
Rod Speed
> Mrcheerful wrote:
>> "rainandsnow" <therain...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:5phnr5F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> we are the robots wrote:
>>>> johngood_____ wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>> Just take it back and say you've only had it 'bout a week and
>>>> haven't got the receipt.
>>>> Works every time!
>>>
>>> But that is lying.
>>
>> You feel aggrieved that it is out of warranty, here is a way to get
>> the warranty you feel you deserve without hurting anyone, Argos will
>> get refunded by the maker and you will have a new unit, no-one will
>> have any argument, win, win all round.
> Sadly lying is now acceptable behaviour. I'd prefer to live in a society where the word of anyone could be trusted. -
> eg a policeman, a politician, a teacher. Britain was once like that.
Nope, it never ever was. It got so bad at one time that they exported their
criminals to the other side of the world and even that didnt fix the problem.
martin_p...@hotmail.com
> You feel aggrieved that it is out of warranty, here is a way to get the
> warranty you feel you deserve without hurting anyone, Argos will get
> refunded by the maker and you will have a new unit, no-one will have any
> argument, win, win all round.
Argos doesn't like you coming into their store complaining and whining
about £10 battery chargers. They call the police and say that you
assaulted a member of their staff. You get carted off in a police car
and get let out that evening with a slap on the wrist, Argos have
peace and quiet in their shop and the policeman gets a nice easy
assignment for the afternoon. Win win all round.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> but of course all directives are toothless without enacting national legislation.
>> Wrong.
> Well I seem to recall that directives are directly
> effective against "emanations of the state".
Wrong.
> Argos may look and work like a benefits office,
> but it's nothing to do with the government as yet.
You did manage to get that bit right, likely by accident.
martin_p...@hotmail.com
> martin_pentre...@hotmail.com wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>> but of course all directives are toothless without enacting national legislation.
> >> Wrong.
> > Well I seem to recall that directives are directly
> > effective against "emanations of the state".
>
> Wrong.
Hi Rod,
We're going a bit off-topic, and I hate to undermine people with such
cast-iron conviction, but look up "horizontal direct effect". Non-
implemented directives are not effective against private individuals
or companies, only against the state itself. I don't have long to
explain, but twenty seconds in google found this in Wikipedia which
mentions the "emanation of the state" doctrine (which itself comes
from a case called British Gas):
"Unlike Treaty provisions and regulations, directives cannot have
horizontal effect (against another private individual or company), as
this is adjudged contrary to the principles of equality (see Marshall
v Southampton and South West Hampshire AHA (1986)). As such,
Directives are currently only vertically directly effective (i.e.
against the state, a concept interpreted broadly by the ECJ, including
state schools and other "emanations of the state")."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_effect
There are plenty of other references on Google if you're interested.
> > Argos may look and work like a benefits office,
> > but it's nothing to do with the government as yet.
> You did manage to get that bit right, likely by accident.
Cheers!
Martin
clams casino
>On 9 Nov, 18:33, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>martin_pentre...@hotmail.com wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>>Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>>but of course all directives are toothless without enacting national legislation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Well I seem to recall that directives are directly
>>>effective against "emanations of the state".
>>>
>>>
>>Wrong.
>>
>>
>
>Hi Rod,
>
>We're going a bit off-topic, and I hate to undermine people with such
>cast-iron conviction, but look up "horizontal direct effect".
>
Please don't confuse Rod with facts. Thinking is hard for Rod.
He'll have to respond with some drivel about some type of pig manure in
a wet paper bag.
martin_p...@hotmail.com
> Please don't confuse Rod with facts. Thinking is hard for Rod.
>
> He'll have to respond with some drivel about some type of pig manure in
> a wet paper bag.
Well I did get the impression that I was wasting my keystrokes, but I
hoped I was wrong.
Cheers!
Martin
William Souden
contradicts his notions you get the flushing bot.
Once a poster put a link to a Supreme Court decision that clearly
refuted a Rod speed claim. His was reply was to say it was "bullshit"
and irrelevant".
Simon Finnigan
news:5phnr5F...@mid.individual.net...
As is saying you have no right to a replacement, which is the blanket
statement from the likes of Argos.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> martin_pentre...@hotmail.com wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> but of course all directives are toothless without enacting national legislation.
>>>> Wrong.
>>> Well I seem to recall that directives are directly
>>> effective against "emanations of the state".
>> Wrong.
> We're going a bit off-topic,
Nope.
> and I hate to undermine people with such cast-iron conviction,
You wouldnt know what a cast iron conviction was if it bit you on your lard arse.
> but look up "horizontal direct effect".
You should look up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Directive#Direct_Effect
> Non- implemented directives are not effective against private
> individuals or companies, only against the state itself.
> I don't have long to explain, but twenty seconds in google found
> this in Wikipedia which mentions the "emanation of the state"
> doctrine (which itself comes from a case called British Gas):
> "Unlike Treaty provisions and regulations, directives cannot have
> horizontal effect (against another private individual or company),
> as this is adjudged contrary to the principles of equality (see
> Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire AHA (1986)).
> As such, Directives are currently only vertically directly effective
> (i.e. against the state, a concept interpreted broadly by the ECJ,
> including state schools and other "emanations of the state")."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_effect
Irrelevant to the original sweeping claim which is, as I said, just plain wrong.
> There are plenty of other references on Google if you're interested.
Dont need them, the original sweeping claim is just plain wrong, like I said.
rainandsnow
Good point, but is it possible that the person at Argos saying that may
believe it to be true?
martin_p...@hotmail.com
> You should look uphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Directive#Direct_Effect
Hello again Rod,
Thanks for that, but I don't think you've understood it. You're quite
right that there's no doubt that directives have direct effect. The
problem for anyone wishing to enforce them against Argos or any other
private body is that they only have effect "vertically" (against the
state), not horizontally. Read the rest of the article, or any of the
many links you will find if you type in "horizontal direct effect".
The only claim available then is based on the Francovich principle
against the member state which has failed to implement. This is not a
practical remedy for a £10 battery charger.
> > Non- implemented directives are not effective against private
> > individuals or companies, only against the state itself.
> > I don't have long to explain, but twenty seconds in google found
> > this in Wikipedia which mentions the "emanation of the state"
> > doctrine (which itself comes from a case called British Gas):
> > "Unlike Treaty provisions and regulations, directives cannot have
> > horizontal effect (against another private individual or company),
> > as this is adjudged contrary to the principles of equality (see
> > Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire AHA (1986)).
> > As such, Directives are currently only vertically directly effective
> > (i.e. against the state, a concept interpreted broadly by the ECJ,
> > including state schools and other "emanations of the state")."
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_effect
>
> Irrelevant to the original sweeping claim which is, as I said, just plain wrong.
>
> > There are plenty of other references on Google if you're interested.
>
> Dont need them, the original sweeping claim is just plain wrong, like I said.
Hmmmmm, well! I've just taken a glance at some of your other posts in
the Google archive. I must apologise to you. I seem to be dealing with
one of the sharpest legal minds on the internet. I can see I'm
outclassed and I wish you all the best, a glittering career at the
European Court of Justice is yours for the asking.
Cheers!
Martin
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> You should look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Directive#Direct_Effect
> Hello again Rod,
> Thanks for that, but I don't think you've understood it.
Corse I did. And it specifically mentions individuals, not just the state too.
> You're quite right that there's no doubt that directives have direct
> effect. The problem for anyone wishing to enforce them against
> Argos or any other private body is that they only have effect
> "vertically" (against the state), not horizontally.
It aint that black and white with your only claim.
> Read the rest of the article,
I did that, long before you ever showed up thanks.
> or any of the many links you will find if you type in "horizontal direct
> effect". The only claim available then is based on the Francovich
> principle against the member state which has failed to implement.
Wrong.
> This is not a practical remedy for a Ł10 battery charger.
Wrong. All you'd likely need to do is rub Argos nose
in that EU directive to see them cave in on the claim.
Or use the small claims system if they dont.
>>> Non- implemented directives are not effective against private
>>> individuals or companies, only against the state itself.
>>> I don't have long to explain, but twenty seconds in google found
>>> this in Wikipedia which mentions the "emanation of the state"
>>> doctrine (which itself comes from a case called British Gas):
>>> "Unlike Treaty provisions and regulations, directives cannot have
>>> horizontal effect (against another private individual or company),
>>> as this is adjudged contrary to the principles of equality (see
>>> Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire AHA (1986)).
>>> As such, Directives are currently only vertically directly effective
>>> (i.e. against the state, a concept interpreted broadly by the ECJ,
>>> including state schools and other "emanations of the state")."
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_effect
>> Irrelevant to the original sweeping claim which is, as I said, just plain wrong.
>>> There are plenty of other references on Google if you're interested.
>> Dont need them, the original sweeping claim is just plain wrong, like I said.
> Hmmmmm, well! I've just taken a glance at some of your other
> posts in the Google archive. I must apologise to you. I seem to
> be dealing with one of the sharpest legal minds on the internet.
> I can see I'm outclassed and I wish you all the best, a glittering
> career at the European Court of Justice is yours for the asking.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Thats sort of consumer claim aint about the European Court of Justice,
its about rubbing Argos nose in the directive and seeing them cave in.
Simon Finnigan
Why would that be at all relevant? They are acting as a representative of
their company, and if their company has told them to say it, and they say
it, why would it matter what they thought?
rainandsnow
> "rainandsnow" <therain...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5pk748F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Simon Finnigan wrote:
>>> "rainandsnow" <therain...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:5phnr5F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> we are the robots wrote:
>>>>> johngood_____ wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Just take it back and say you've only had it 'bout a week and
>>>>> haven't got the receipt.
>>>>> Works every time!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that is lying.
>>>
>>> As is saying you have no right to a replacement, which is the blanket
>>> statement from the likes of Argos.
>>
>>
>> Good point, but is it possible that the person at Argos saying that
>> may believe it to be true?
>
> Why would that be at all relevant? They are acting as a representative
> of their company, and if their company has told them to say it, and they
> say it, why would it matter what they thought?
Why would it be relevant?? Because if they didn't know then telling them
would be a better solution than lying as they would not be so inclined
to pass on false information to other customers.
If you are saying that one lie justifies another, then do you have any
problem with Argos's actions in Martin's scenario above??
If Argos are acting in ignorance of their obligations or pretending to
be ignorant, surely invoking ones rights is a better and more honourable
course of action than lying.
Theo_D...@yahoo.co.uk
> martin_pentre...@hotmail.com wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> You should look uphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Directive#Direct_Effect
> > Hello again Rod,
> > Thanks for that, but I don't think you've understood it.
>
> Corse I did.
What has Corsica to do with this?
--
x If you have been, are you still illiterate?
/|\
Nathan
I've worked in aftersales for many years, and having read up on this type of
thing on the Trading Standards website, there are a number of factors
involved in determining whether you are entitled to anything after the
guarantee period has expired. The most important in this case is whether
one would reasonably expect that the product would only last that long,
taking account of the price paid and expected use. As this is such a low
cost item, they could successfully argue that it is reasonable for it to
only last a year.
On another note - unless you happen upon a particularly inexperienced staff
member, Argos will not normally replace a product without a receipt.
DubDriver
"Nathan" <nos...@thank.you> wrote in message
news:473b3b5d$0$7542$6c5e...@news.maximumusenet.com...
I think you need to "read up" a little more
> there are a number of factors involved in determining whether you are
> entitled to anything after the guarantee period has expired.
Assuming a 12 month guarantee then it's nothing to do with that as the key
period of time after purchase is 6 months, this is when important rights
change under the SOGA
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/bglitem.cgi?file=badv073-1011.txt
> The most important in this case is whether one would reasonably expect
> that the product would only last that long, taking account of the price
> paid and expected use. As this is such a low cost item, they could
> successfully argue that it is reasonable for it to only last a year.
They could but they would be wrong as the purchaser could equally argue that
the Sale of Goods Act makes no mention of the cost of the goods) otherwise
as in the OP case battery chargers would be exempt from the SOGA)!
> On another note - unless you happen upon a particularly inexperienced
> staff member, Argos will not normally replace a product without a receipt.
Then they would be wrong to insist that a receipt is necessary as the SOGA
states any reasonable proof of purchase is sufficient ie a credit card bill
for example
Simon Finnigan
> Simon Finnigan wrote:
>> "rainandsnow" <therain...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:5pk748F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Simon Finnigan wrote:
>>>> "rainandsnow" <therain...@NOTTHISBITyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:5phnr5F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> we are the robots wrote:
>>>>>> johngood_____ wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Just take it back and say you've only had it 'bout a week and haven't
>>>>>> got the receipt.
>>>>>> Works every time!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is lying.
>>>>
>>>> As is saying you have no right to a replacement, which is the blanket
>>>> statement from the likes of Argos.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good point, but is it possible that the person at Argos saying that may
>>> believe it to be true?
>>
>> Why would that be at all relevant? They are acting as a representative
>> of their company, and if their company has told them to say it, and they
>> say it, why would it matter what they thought?
>
>
> Why would it be relevant?? Because if they didn't know then telling them
> would be a better solution than lying as they would not be so inclined to
> pass on false information to other customers.
Are you saying it is the customers job to provide training for the staff at
a company? If you where running a company and a member of staff took legal
advice from a customer, and then passed that advice onto other customers,
would you be happy with them?
> If you are saying that one lie justifies another, then do you have any
> problem with Argos's actions in Martin's scenario above??
>
> If Argos are acting in ignorance of their obligations or pretending to be
> ignorant, surely invoking ones rights is a better and more honourable
> course of action than lying.
If the choice is between lying to them, and spending a month or two writing
threatening letters before initiating court action, then each person would
have to make that decision themselves - based on their interpretation of the
relevant legislation (i.e. which is the lesser evil) and their value of
their own time. For example, if you would rather spend 5 or 10 hours of
your time chasing up a replacement for a £10 item, when telling a lie would
give you the same end result, that is your choice.
Frederick Williams
>
> I'm really fed up with the amount of our electrical goods that have broken
> down invariably not long after the one year warranty period has expired. I
> dont know if its true, but a Japanese told me that manufacturers are
> actually beginning to design stuff to do this.
Beginning? Built in obsolescence is a well-established property of many
manufactured goods; it's been going on for years.
--
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid,"
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.
Frederick Williams
> Sadly lying is now acceptable behaviour. I'd prefer to live in a
> society where the word of anyone could be trusted. - eg a policeman, a
> politician, a teacher. Britain was once like that.
When was that? Just because people did trust policemen, politicians and
teachers once doesn't mean that there was ever a time when they didn't
lie.
--
How unlike the home life of our own dear Queen.