Now see them here at home https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2017/jun/27/ocean-plastic-pollution-scotland-in-pictures

This doesn't apply to all sellers, but be careful on what you buy from who. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/272064192743 I bought some Xmas lights which were advertised as "new". Unfortunately this seller has sold almost all of them, so the people that bought them are at risk from fire or injury if they use them. The last picture is when I opened the box. No screws holding it together, it too easily just fell apart. You can see the wires from the 240v supply are almost touching. http://imglnk.uk/img?i=VvcBvb http://imglnk.uk/img?i=QyxTFy http://imglnk.uk/img?i=uxBMeL http://imglnk.uk/img?i=jZSgIw http://imglnk.uk/img?i=CIBPAO http://imglnk.uk/img?i=WpEyvI http://imglnk.uk/img?i=gjefYV http://imglnk.uk/img?i=gdWFBg The control box has been used before, it is damaged and scratched all over. It doesn't conform to IP44 since water can get in though the button hole at the top.As well as objects and tools 1mm could get into an unprotected wire hole. The control box even has the logo for double insulated electronics, however, there is only 1 protective cover that falls off between peoples hands and the 240v power supply. Someone has wired in a 10A fused plug which is completely wrong. 10Amp isn t going to do anything when used with this product and is unsafe. The 240V cable that has been wired to it has the outer protective cover cut too far back. The soldering to the control board is terrible, there is no strain relief on the power cord what so ever. One of the LED light cables hasn't been put in place properly and is caught on the edge of this box. This is highly dangerous and actually illegal to sell in the UK due to how unsafe it is.

In September 2013 BT negligently deleted 9 years of my emails, the emails contained information and evidence on a project that I had been working on, there were also attachments to emails and details of contacts that were also lost/deleted. I duly complained to BT and followed the requirements set out in their complaints procedure, unfortunately BT did not. Subsequent to which I reported the loss of emails to the Information Commissioner in the hope they would take an interest, the breach of the Data Protection Act as defined on their website seemed to have been satisfied. I was at all times told by BT that my telephone conversation was recorded which gave me some comfort, short lived when I found out this was untrue. At the end of the 'in house' procedure I was offered £100 as a 'good will' gesture, this I declined and reported my complaint to the Ombudsman Service-Communications(OSC) which meant my complaint was now Negligence and Maladministration against BT, I had spoken to the OSC at some considerable length to ensure that the nature of my complaint was within their remit and established that it was. The OSC, outside their suggested time scale, issued their 'adjudication' which was/is flawed in many respects in that they claim that my contract for telephone and Broadband services with BT did not include email, which it does/did. The report also blamed the 'negligent acts of BT on a 'system failure' which would/could not have been possible. The maladministration of the OSC that I have been obliged to deal with was/is worse than that suffered during my dealings with BT. I obtained a copy of the BT 'call log' that contains 135 entries and refers to failed 'call backs', in fact there were 27 failed call backs which resulted in 54 telephone calls from me to BT, each call took 40 minutes to get through to a person and even than not the right person. Subsequent events required that I must now issue a further complaint this time to the Independent Assessor who reviews action of the OSC, he found in my favour on a number of issues concerning Maladministration although he cannot review the findings of the OSC or their methodology. The conclusion now is that the service available for complaining about negligence of your Internet Service Provider(ISP) is not fit for purpose, a further complaint now lodged with my MP for progress through the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman whilst still attempting to obtain a meaningful reply from the OSC regarding the false and misleading assertions contained in their adjudication, so far only the 'system failure' has been dropped and false reference to evidence that did not exist also seems to be admitted. Clearly I now need some help and any suggestions would be welcome. As to the value of my claim, this has yet to be discussed or assessed but the 9 years work was done whilst I became disabled and now suffer with COPD (respiratory dis-function) and the work can never be replicated or replaced.

I don't understand why CAG don't have a dedicated system for uploading images. It seems that the people that need to upload images the most are new users. New users face restrictions on posting attachments and links. It seems that they have to download some software to turn them into PDF's and then upload them to the site. Why not have a CAG image uploader where it is possible for the user / mods to modify the images to black out sections? This wouldn't be too hard to do for a PHP developer.

Is there something under UK law to prevent an online seller displaying misleading photographs even if there is small print to state the photograph shows something not included? I recently bought what I thought was an A2 picture frame from Amazon. A search on Amazon for "A2 frame" showed this item: (unable to link, please search Amazon for B009RBIZ1O) The item I received was a rolled up poster. On checking Amazon I noticed some small print at the end of the long description. I also noticed other people had left negative reviews because they had also thought they were purchasing a frame. The seller appears to be using an Amazon account to accuse these customers of being stupid. In the meantime they have a much more suitable photograph of a poster they could use as the main image. While it isn't a huge amount of money it annoys me to see they are aware of the confusion from previous customers and leaving comments on their reviews calling customers stupid. All they need to do is swap the photograph but I suspect they know they wouldn't sell as many £10 posters this way. I tried contacting Amazon who just put me in touch with the seller for a refund but I actually want them to change the misleading photo.

Hi, I'm looking for some advice on the following please, Any help will be very much appreciated! I'm the webmaster of a website, and a malicious user uploaded indecent images of children to my website and registered the account that uploaded it as me (Trying to frame me). And also he tried to hack into my website but it got blocked by my firewall. I then made a report/time log of what happened, info I have on the guy and what he uploaded and where and contacted 101 to report the crime. A police officer turned up and we discussed the issue and he passed it over to cybercrime unit and he asked me to send him links to the images that was uploaded. however two months later I still have not heard a single thing and they are saying I need to keep my website offline while they investigate however this has taken two months and I am still paying money for my servers which I cannot use. I have spoken to the police again and they said its best I continue to pay for the server so when the cybercrime unit speak to me they can gain access to see the evidence, and if I do delete the server they may try to seize my computer?? However my server is in France and has nothing to do with my computer? I am unsure on what to do here as this is costing me money paying for something I cannot use and I am basically being forced to pay it or have my computer sized??? (Even though there’s nothing on my computer which I have repeatedly told them) Thanks