Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi. Could you post up what they've sent please so we can see what the charge is? Cover up your name and address and their reference number. HB
    • I've looked through all our old NPE threads, and as far as we know they have never had the bottle to do court. There are no guarantees of course, but when it comes to put or shut up they definitely tend towards shut up. How about something like -   Dear Jonathan and Julie, Re: PCN no.XXXXX cheers for your Letter Before Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea that you actually expected me to take this tripe seriously and cough up. I'll write to you not some uninterested third party, thanks all the same, because you have are the ones trying to threaten me about this non-existent "debt". Go and look up Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd, saddos.  Oh, while you're at it, go and look up your Subject Access Request obligations - we all know how you ballsed that up way back in January to March. Dear, dear, dear - you couldn't resist adding your £70 Unicorn Food Tax, you greedy gets.  Judges don't like these made-up charges, do they? You can either drop this foolishness now or get a hell of a hammering in court.  Both are fine with me.  Summer is coming up and I would love a holiday at your expense after claiming an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g). I look forward to your deafening silence.   That should show them you're not afraid of them and draw their attention to their having legal problems of their own with the SAR.  If they have any sense they'll crawl back under their stone and leave you in peace.  Over the next couple of days invest in a 2nd class stamp (all they are worth) and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.
    • Yes that looks fine. It is to the point. I think somewhere in the that the you might want to point out that your parcel had been delivered but clearly had been opened and resealed and the contents had been stolen
    • Hi All, I just got in from work and received a letter dated 24 April 2024. "We've sent you a Single Justice Procedure notice because you have been charged with an offence, on the Transport for London Network." "You need to tell us whether you are guilty or not guilty. This is called making your plea."
    • Okay please go through the disclosure very carefully. I suggest that you use the technique broadly in line with the advice we give on preparing your court bundle. You want to know what is there – but also very importantly you want to know what is not there. For instance, the email that they said they sent you before responding to the SAR – did you see that? Is there any trace of of the phone call that you made to the woman who didn't know anything about SAR's? On what basis was the £50 sent to you? Was it unilateral or did they offer it and you accepted it on some condition? When did they send you this £50 cheque? Have you banked it? Also, I think that we need to start understanding what you have lost here. Have you lost any money – and if so how much? Send the SAR to your bank as advised above
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

NHS watchdog NICE calls for Trans-Fats Ban in Foods


banker_rhymes_with
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5051 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello Folks!

 

And not before time either...

 

NHS watchdog NICE calls for Trans-Fats Ban in Foods

 

Doctors agree...

Medics call for Ban on Trans-Fats in UK Food

 

This rubbish has absolutely no place in our food, and is only there to boost the profits of the Food Industry, irrespective of what it does to your health.

 

TRANS-FATS

 

 

  • They are partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, turning oily fat into semi-solid fat.

 

  • The Food Industry uses them to cut costs, because they are very, very cheap.

 

  • The Food Industry uses them to make life easier for themselves, because they extend Shelf-Life of products significantly, often by a disturbing amount of time.

 

  • They raise levels of "bad" cholesterol and clog your arteries.

 

  • Whilst a small reduction in consumption can cut heart disease...better still, why not ban them outright and reap the health rewards this will bring.

 

  • They have absolutely no nutritional benefit, and no taste worth considering.

 

  • They are a non-food and they are dangerous.

 

Having read that, compare the above with the rubbish being spouted out by a Food Industry Spokesperson (Julian Hunt of the Food and Drink Federation):

 

The food industry is leading the world when it comes to voluntarily changing the recipes of popular food brands so that they are lower in salt, fat or sugar.
No. It isn't.

 

Here's why...because the Spokesperson goes on to say:

 

Industry reformulation efforts have already resulted in the levels of trans-fats in foods dropping to well below the suggested maximum daily intake recommended by the World Health Organization.
WTF does Industry reformulation efforts mean?

 

I'll tell you what it means...they are trying to keep as much of this deadly rubbish in as they can, for as long as they can, until someone forces them to drop this killer muck from our food. Until then, they will squirm and wriggle, and thwart all reasonable attempts to make them see the error of their ways.

 

The above is no different than The Debt Industry telling you that Debt is good for you!

 

 

Read the Small Print

 

I urge everyone to read the small print on labels and, if you see even the slightest hint that Trans-Fats might be present, then do not buy. Find something better and safer.

 

This rubbish is in everything from Margarines (often a small tell-tale quantity buried in the small print), to lower quality Ice Cream, to Biscuits, to Cakes, to Fast Food Burgers and Pizzas, to Wine Gums and all the way to British Chocolate!

 

This rubbish was once never in our food, it was gradually introduced when the Food Industry's bean counters spotted a wonderful way to boost profits, by simultaneously reducing Product Cost and dramatically extending Shelf-Life. In effect, they are getting you to buy something other than what you thought you were buying. The concept is similar to water injection into meat to bulk it up for no good reason, but it's far, far more dangerous.

 

 

The British Chocolate Myth

 

This was a marketing gimmick to fool you.

 

Selling you a Bar of 100% Trans-Fat was decided to be too obvious, it would look unattractive and would have no taste! So, the Food Industry reluctantly agreed to sacrifice their profits by keeping in some Chocolate to give the plasticated Trans-Fat rubbish enough taste and colour to cover up their strategy. Then their Marketing Departments came up with the idea to re-label this Frankenstein Chocolate as British Chocolate.

 

Their next move was to convince us that the nasty EEC was trying to ban our British Chocolate and replace it with nasty foreign real chocolate.

 

The reality is somewhat different. These people ruined our Chocolate years ago. It's time to get back what you once knew, and demand that they remove the killer rubbish from all your food, not just your Chocolate!

 

 

The Hidden Killer

 

I really hope this helps people to appreciate what a danger this stuff presents. Inspect everything you buy, and reject anything you even suspect has Trans-Fats present.

 

You really do not need it, it serves no nutritional purpose, it has no taste, it has poor eating quality, and it does absolutely nothing except cause you harm.

 

Many Countries have already imposed an outright ban. But, sadly, we have some catching up to do.

 

Over here, the Food Industry, like the Debt Industry, has a great deal of influence, most of it concentrated on maintaining trouser pocket access to our Self-Serving Politicians.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now reading the small print on Flora Buttery. It contains trans fat.

 

It reads "International dietary guideline recommend a limited intake of saturated fats, trans fat, sugars and salt (sodium) to maintain good health. This product is in line with these guidelines".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello 2gr82btrue!

 

Right now reading the small print on Flora Buttery. It contains trans fat.
I'd put it straight in the bin in that case.

 

It reads "International dietary guideline recommend a limited intake of saturated fats, trans fat, sugars and salt (sodium) to maintain good health. This product is in line with these guidelines".
This is a deliberately misleading statement, designed to insert Trans Fats into the mix as if they have a place.

 

To me, it reads more like this:

 

International dietary guideline recommend a limited intake of saturated fats, rat poison, sugars and salt (sodium) to maintain good health. This product is in line with these guidelines.

 

:eek:

 

That changes the perspective, does it not!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited by banker_rhymes_with
Clarity.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Folks!

 

I've just had a trawl on Google, and there are some useful Web Sites to explain the issues in more detail:

 

A Campaign Site, good for them:

 

TFX The Campaign Against Trans Fats in Food

 

One aimed at Mothers, but they seem to be aware of the key issues:

 

Netmums - Transfats and Hydrogenated Fats

 

The NHS report 18/01/2010:

 

NHS - Call to Ban Man-Made Fat

 

The Grauniad:

 

The Guardian - Doctors Demand Ban on Man-Made Fat

 

The Guardian - A Ban on Trans Fats is Overdue

 

The Independent:

 

The Independent - Ban Trans Fats and Thousands of Lives will be Saved, UK told

 

The Times:

 

The Times - The Truth about Trans Fat

 

The above was written by Maggie Stanfield (author of Trans Fat: The Time Bomb in Your Food) in The Times as long ago as 2008:

 

The article concludes with a comment from a very forward thinking Danish Cardiologist, who sums things up rather well:

 

Professor Steen Stender is the cardiologist in Denmark who became the driving force behind the decision to ban trans fats there. He says:

 

"Between the introduction of the ban in 2000 and 2005, we saw heart disease rates in this country decline by 20 per cent.

 

What more proof does the EU need before it dispenses with ineffective food labelling ideas and voluntary codes and introduces a level playing field for the food industry throughout the EU where no trans fats are used anywhere?"

Cheers,

BRW

Edited by banker_rhymes_with
Link updates
Link to post
Share on other sites

I putt some asda quarter pounder burgers on the barby tonight quiet thick they were before they cooked but I used the spatula to quash them down and wow you should of seen the fat come out of them.

 

They did not taste very wholesome ether.

 

PF

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been avoiding hydrogenated stuff for 10 years, since I discovered Low-carb... It comes with a lot of reading about what goes in your food, and margarine etc never featured in my food ever since.

 

Butter, butter, butter, with nothing added by salt, that's the way to go IMO. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I putt some asda quarter pounder burgers on the barby tonight quiet thick they were before they cooked but I used the spatula to quash them down and wow you should of seen the fat come out of them.

 

They did not taste very wholesome ether.

 

PF

Besides the fact that they're unlikley to be good quality anyway, you should never squash meat to get the fat out, it toughens the fibre in the meat, and despite what the low-fat industry puts out as propaganda, fat is an integral part of our food and necessary to a balanced diet. It will also make your burgers taste better, less dry. If you cook the meat long enough, the fat will metabolise or drip out anyway, so for a better eating experience, never ever quash meat. ;-) (and make your own, this way you know what's gone in it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit I've never had real butter for ages mainly because of the price which if you think about it is probably set artificially high in order to push the other buttery spreads.

 

PF

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides the fact that they're unlikley to be good quality anyway, you should never squash meat to get the fat out, it toughens the fibre in the meat, and despite what the low-fat industry puts out as propaganda, fat is an integral part of our food and necessary to a balanced diet. It will also make your burgers taste better, less dry. If you cook the meat long enough, the fat will metabolise or drip out anyway, so for a better eating experience, never ever quash meat. :wink: (and make your own, this way you know what's gone in it)

 

Then the question is: what is the meat content in those burgers not a lot I bet.

 

Ill fish the packet out of the recycling bin in the morning and have a look.

 

PF

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea for a campaign. :) Thank you for starting it up. I'm always reading labels in supermarkets.

 

So much ice cream isn't ice cream. :mad: Soft scoop is especially rubbishy.

 

Isn't it outrageous that the supermarkets have all put up butter from 82/84p to 98p in one step? How can they justify that?

 

Also, while on the subject of food:

 

Low fat anything always puts me off. I'd rather have cream cheese that's all cream cheese, rather than having it bulked out by something else - usually semolina. The same goes for creme fraiche.

 

If it's 'No added sugar' it's probably full of sweeteners. :(:eek:

 

And even these days, so many crisps manufacturers are still using monosodium glutamate. Horrible stuff, and my daughter knows it's bad for her. :eek: She came home once from a playdate with itchy red eyes and I found out she'd been given beef flavour crisps which are full of MSG. It's really dreadful to be putting this stuff in crisps bearing in mind so many children eat loads of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts have always been to avoid processed food. Rather have butter and spread it thinly that some frankenspread.

 

As for the British chocolate campaign, I was really annoyed about that at the time. I'd been living in Germany and had eaten really good chocolate that was never expensive. I used to mock the "British chocolate" campaigners inthe press, "we want poor quality chocolate and we demand the right to pay more for it!" British choclate (like mass produced British bread) is awful stuff. Sticks to the roof of your mouth. Better for lagging the loft with than eating. Well the bread anyway.

 

A while ago I bought some burgers for the freezer, when I cooked the first one all this fat came out and turned into white waxy pellets. I couldn't get rid of it. The rest of the pack went straigh in the bin. Yuck.

 

Anyone read "In Defence of Food" by Michael Pollan? He tooks about real unprocesed food and how much better it is for you than the processed mush we eat today. Btw in case anyone's wondering, (thinking, it's all right if you can afford it) I'm poor and live alone. Most of my income (apart from bills) goes on food. I don't buy much else at all. Can't afford to. I always buy the best quality I can get. I cook for myself too. It's not hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...