I assume you mean me when you say "Some posters have been very insensitive by pointing the finger at the OP for daring to suggest this.". I'm sorry, but all I was doing was pointing out that if the OP thought it was race related, then back it up with evidence, not just because they had a "feeling". Is everyone ignoring the fact that the law was broken, and a fine issued? I am not stupid and I am aware that racism is rife in this country, and I know quite a few people who have experienced it themselves, so I'm not one of those people who it is difficult to explain to. My whole point is, if you're going to say racism was involved, then back it up with facts, not just a feeling you have. A "feeling" in court wouldn't stand up. C'mon people, how would you feel if someone said you've done something to them because of the colour of their skin. Would you just accept it? No, of course not. Just saying the whole race issue can be used when someone feels aggrieved for whatever reason too liberally. No doubt someone will come on and have a go at me now, saying I'm being unfair to the OP. I'm not. I agree he was dealt with wrong, but the fact is he got fined and accepted it.

But you said you felt you had been treated this way due to the colour of your skin. Of course, I agree the way you've been treated is wrong, and the bailiff had nothing better to do than call the police. I'm not trying to turn the table around, but when you say you feel like you've been treated differently because of the colour of your skin, then with that statement, you're saying it's racially motivated. I probably would've done exactly what you done, swearing and whatever, and just have to accept the fine, rightly so. All i'm saying is, you can't make statements saying your treatment was down to the colour of your skin, and not back it up with facts.

And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that you were arrested and fined, based on the colour of your skin? I think you have to back up your claims of racism by proving you were arrested and caution because of your skin colour. Not saying you haven't been treated unfairly, but, if the bailiff called the police, and you had used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour (you said you had swore), then the police are within their rights to arrest and fine you. If you bring a racism accusation against the police, make sure you've got plenty of facts to back you up. I'm sorry, but, you can't just go around saying they arrested you because of your skin colour. My friend is a police officer and he said that the amount of times the accusation of racism is brought up, the officers in question get investigated. You've admitted the crime, so take the fine. Don't put peoples careers on the line, just because you feel like you've been racially discriminated against, when you haven't.

This is the camera in question. Just noticed it say Age 8+. Silver 4.1MP Digital Camera - Toys R Us - Britain's greatest toy store Nowhere on the package does it say anything about it being a kids camera, but the manager said that the camera is made for kids, so that's why the quality isn't the best. I know when I worked in retail we either gave a partial refund for the packaging being unusable again, or a credit note. They just want to know what to expect when they go in tomorrow. edit:The managers arguement was, as my friend had already had a look at it in the shop, they knew what to expect. The display camera they looked at had no batteries in, so obviously they couldn't see what the picture quality was like. When my friend mentioned this, this is when the manager said, words to the effect of, it's 4.1 megapixel, what do you expect?

Camera was £25, reduced from £30, chilld is 6 and as far as I know, no recommendation regarding age.

A friend of mine bought a kids digital camera today from Toys R us. It was in a glass display. They asked to have a look it, so it was taken out the cabinet, and after having a look, friend said they'd take it. When they got home, opened the packaging down the back and top, as it was an all plastic package. Put batteries in and took a picture. Quality was bad and picture very small, so didn't want to keep it. Returned to the store 2 hours later and the manager refused a refund as he said that as it was open, they wouldn't be able to resell it. My friend said all they wanted was to upgrade to a better one, pay the extra if need so, but manager said no, not even a credit note. Where do they stand on getting a refund? She'd even take a credit note.

This is the best one! Went to jobcentre at 9:30am today, for a look on the jobpoints. All of them were down, so left, paid some bills and came back at 11am to sign on. The girl asked how the jobsearch was going. Told her what I'd applied for. Fine, she said. She asked if I've looked on the jobpoints today. Told her I'd been in at 9:30am and they weren't working. They were still not working when I was signing on, so I said, no, I've not been able to llok at them cos they're not working. Her answer? Not my problem! Your JS agreement says bllah blah blah, and you have to look on the jobpoints. Asked her if she wanted me to wait until they were working? She said if I didn't mind, so I said, well, for every minute they're not working and I'm sitting here, I could be out looking elsewhere for a job. Can I go now? She signed me and yes yes, but, this is the best bit! She said as I was leaving,"Make sure the jobpoints are working next time you sign on" I really didn't have an answer for that! I mean, what could I say?!

I can understand how it must feel to be asked for ID, especially when it's obvious you're old enough, but talking of boycotting shops, etc. Don't you think that's a bit over the top? I mean, come on! What's the problem in showing ID if asked? I've never been asked, but if I was in ASDA and was asked, and didn't have any, then I'd just go the off licence. Using ASDA for alcohol is basically for convenience. I'll buy it with the rest of my groceries. If I was asked, didn't have any ID, and really wanted, say, a bottle of Jack Daniels, because it was on offer at a great price, I'd have no problem, in bringing ID with me next time. I only live 2 minutes way, so could easily go home, but it can wait. I was asked in a bar last year, on my 35th birthday, by an 18 yr old, if me and my mates had ID! Now, none of my mates look under 30, believe me! We're all of the big, tattooed to death, doorman type build and I asked to see the manager. Managaer comes over and asks what the problem is, told him that barperson is refusing to serve us cause we have no id, manager apologies, gets us a round of shots and told the barperson that when it's obvious someone is over 18, no need to ask. I can see where a young cashier feels they have to ask for ID, maybe down to management pressure. It's easy to say that you wouldn't work for someone who put you under that much pressure, but I'm afraid in this day and age, a job is hard to come by, and it's easier to do what they ask than leave and be unemployed. I actually think the Challenge 21 policy is quite good. 25, to me, seems acceptable, only because I am over 25, but when you talk about 30 or 35, now that is starting to verge on the ridiculous.

Yorky, I know what you mean! I remember when I was in Florida about ten years ago, and we were in a bar that also sold bottles of spirits to take out. I was 26 then, and had my passport as ID, so was ok. Just as we were leaving, this really old man came in, and he must've been in his 80's, easily, asked for a bottle of JD, and the barman asked him for ID! He showed him whatever ID he had, and went on his merry way! I think in the states, it's a case of, no ID, no sale, no matter what age. Now, I went to a local supermarket there, and bought a case of beer, got to the till, and the cashier didn't even question me. I have to add that she looked totally miserable and probably only earning minimum wage and was thinking, not my problem, when she never asked for ID.

This is one of the only threads I've read lately that hasn't turned into a slanging match! Now, for me, I'm 36, and have never, ever been asked for ID in the big supermarkets. Do I think the Challenge 25 rule is good? In theory, yes. But in practice, leaves a lot to be desired. If you look under 25, but are older than that, then if you use these supermarkets, you should always carry ID to buy alcohol from there. After reading this thread and sitting here and thinking more, I have to admit I have seen many occasions where people are refused because they didn't have ID, but is obvious they are old enough. I think a lot of staff use their own judgement, where they feel they don't have to ask for ID> I was at a Tesco's at 10:30pm last week, and put two bottles of wine through the self service, and when it flashed up I needed authorisation, the girl just came over and waved her bar code thing over the scanner and said, "There you go!". Now, I was with my girlfriend, who looks under 25, but nothing was said. She could see we were a couple, and obviously not the type to hanging about in parks, or the like, so didn't feel the need to challenge us. I used to know someone who worked in ASDA and she said that there were a few members of staff who used to enjoy refusing to sell alcohol to some people, because they didn't have ID! She also said these members of staff weren't particularly very nice people either. I've worked in retial, and I know when you get obnoxious, horrible customers, that you really don't want to serve them, so in a way I can understand some staff using their position of refusal as their way of dealing with the horrible customers. But, of course, not all customers are bad, and could get served by a cashier who just isn't having a good day. Anyway, I'm off to buy some bottles of Newky Brown from the asda! On offer for a pound! (Must remember my ID)...

As long as the policy is in full view of everyone, Tesco have every right to refuse the sale of alcohol to anyone. I'm not sure about what is acceptable ID. I always thought it was either your birth certificate, driving license or passport. I should imagine if someone doesn't have one of these when they attempt to buy alcohol and get refused, then the only other option is simple. Go elsewhere. As for it being racially motivated. You'd have to prove it. Let's face it, if anyone doesn't have ID, then they can be refused, no matter what nationality they are. The shop staff are only following orders from management. Let's say you worked on the till, and the same old woman and daughter came to you. You asked for ID, they showed their EU ID card and you accepted it and sold it. Then, it turns out the girl was only 17, but looked 30. They get stopped by security, and the manager is called Manager asks why you served them, you say that they showed you their EU ID. Manager tells you that you know this is not an acceptable form of ID. You say you thought it was. You'd end up getting probably sacked for not following correct procedure and knowing what is an acceptable form of ID. See, I have no problem with the challenge 25 rule. My girlfriend looks around 18, but she's 24, and she has no problem with it either. If these people you see being denied alcohol are regular shoppers at Tesco, then they should know about the challenge 25 rule and know what is acceptable as ID. Sorry, but I'm on the stores side here. I can see your point, but at the end of the day, no member of staff is going to risk losing their job by selling alcohol to someone without proper ID.

Regarding the CRB and arrests. I have just spoken to my mother, who works for the CRB, and she said, if you are arrested, but not convicted, when a CRB check is made, the arrest will be made available if it is relevant to the job that is being applied for. For example, you get arrested on suspicion of theft, and are completely innocent and let go, then apply for a job with a bank, as the arrest is relevant to the job, then the details will be made available. My mum said that once the arrest is on your record, it's there forever, and any potential employer could see it as no smoke without fire. Obviously, they will not be interested in the circumstances of the arrest, they will just see an arrest on suspicion of theft and move onto the next applicant. So, even though this matter has now been resolved, I would have to say never offer to get yourself arrested, even if you're innocent.

Right, you need to tell your solicitor that they need to inform her solicitors that an accusation of child abuse has been made, to a Dr, and you've reported it to the police. Once they receive the letter, I'm sure they cannot push for her to see the children after this allegation. If they know about this, I'm sure they won't still push for her to be with your kids, because I'm sure, legally, they won't want to be held responsible for sending an allegedly child abusing mother back to the children she's allegedlly abused. Seriously, faz, you need to start pushing this forward now. Don't sit back any longer and worry. Speak to your solicitor, and explain all your fears like you have done here.

Faz, I can see this is affecting you badly, but you say your sister told the headmaster today about the wife mentally abusing the kids every day, and he said it would be best if your wife could see the children away from school. But, you said that the headmaster was arranging a contact centre. I don't understand why he would be doing this. Surely any colicitor or person from an association. who is acting on your wifes behalf, would be organising such centre? Also, I happened to read another post you left on another thread and you said you only have 2 kids and live in a council house, yet here you say you have 5 kids and live in a housing association house? I'm getting really confused now.

Why is the headmaster arranging contact at another centre? I still can't understand how a woman who has allegedly abused these kids is seeing them all the time. Now you've taken the kids the doctor and let them explain what's gone on, you seriously need to do everything in your power to stop this woman seeing your kids. I'm sure that no authority would allow an adult, accused of abusing children, spend any amount of time with them. As soon as these allegations of child abuse were made, the police should've been contacted straight away, and no contact between herself and the kis be given to her, until the allegations were investigated. Up to now, she's been allowed to visit these kids all week. I know everyone is asking you a lot of questions, and at times it can be a bit iffy from what you're saying, but this situation is only going to get more messy, and will be a lot worse than a few forum members saying their piece. You need to stop waiting around now. You need to visit the police now.The Dr will back up your visit. I think we're all a bit confused regarding your wife not being a legal british citizen. If she's not meant ot be here, then I can't understand why these events have spiralled into what they are now.

This is starting to get really complicated now. I have to second what sailor sam says. So many people are asking you to change your bail conditions and move out and let her move in with the kids, yet, these abuse claims are extremely serious, and they cannot be ignored by anyone. I just can't understand that, if an allegation of abuse is made against a parent, then why aren't the authorities doing everything they can to NOT let her see the kids? It just seems a lot of going back and forth over a more serious issue of child abuse than of someone hitting their wife. I'm a parent, and I'm telling you now, if I was in the OP's position, the police would've been informed straight away. Plus, I would be doing everything in my power to make the authorities stand up and listen. I would constantly be in touch with my solicitor as much as possible. It just seems OP is more interested in getting his alleged assault out the way first before attempting getting the wife investigated. What i find even more bizarre is the fact she is not meant to be in the country, yet that fact seems to have been forgotten by the authorities. I'm not trying to offend anyone or insult anyone, i'm just saying it as i see it. Child abuse is an extremely serious allegation, and I just can't accept that not that much is being done about it. The kids are now with their dad, dad tells authorities about alleged child abuse, then authorities still push for the kids to be reunited with their allegedly abusing mother, while the dad, who's looking after them safely, is told to leave? It all seems very mixed up to me.

Don't think about contacting newspapers, do it! Why the hell should you and your family have to suffer with no hot water or heating in this day and age? I was in the same position for 2 weeks, and that was bad enough, but for 5 months? And you have a baby as well! Stick to your guns on this one, don't let them get away with it. If I was you, I'd get a diary and try to write down all the days you had to travel for a shower, etc. and if they do send someone round, you can show them this as well.

I'd follow slick's advice, especially the letter to the MP part. I mean, warmfront are getting paid by the government, so I should imagine they won't like the bad press.

Can I just add that it's probably best you remove the tracking number from your post? Only because, it shows your surname, postcode, and you've explained in a few posts above the shop where your flat is above and how many flats there are! Bad move, especially in this day and age for fraud!

I'd do as foolishgirl says. Looks like something has happened to this horse while they've had it. Now they're demanding money, you to sort it out and turning up at your house? I'm sorry, but that's not acceptable. I know you probably can't stand the thought of the horse being there and would take it back if you could, but as you can't, call the RSPCA. I wouldn#t enter into any more conversation with the buyers, as they seem like they could turn on you.

Gilliana, please don't worry about this interview. It's a standard back to work one. Most of the time, the advisors are friendly and give you the info you need about getting a job. I think the reason a lot of advisors become horrible is when clients (as they call them, or is it customers?!) come in and have no intention of working, and it shows. You don't have to have a 2 sides of A4 of all the jobs you've applied for, just 3-5. They'll ask you things like, what have you been doing to find work. Things like the internet, newspapers, word of mouth, etc. Then, they'll talk you through the type of work you're looking for. Even if you say you are only after part time, you still have to say that you are available for full time to receive JSA As I say, try not to worry about it. I know in this thread, there are many accounts of bad advisors, but don't let that put you off! There are some good ones who will try and help you out.

Those people are being paid to help jobseekers, so no excuse for them to be insulting and patronising, as you say. Besides, I'm only speaking from experience. I've said earlier that some advisors are genuine, but not the majority of ones I've dealt with, so take that comment which ever way you want.

Has anyone experienced the look of shock when you tell an advisor that you have an up to date cv, so don't need any help in making one? The majority of the time they are not expecting someone with a brain to speak to them with a bit of intelligence. Seems like they're not trained for that!

I agree it's all about trying to catch you out, not you help you out. There's another thread somewhere where I mention about asking the JCP about wanting to work for trading standards, but need qualifications, and being advised that I'm better off lowering my standards and going for retail jobs like ASDA or Tesco. You only need to go in, knowing what job you want, and you ask them for the help you need to get the job, and the majority just don't have a clue.

Yeah, he has 2 or maybe three cd's out at the moment. This is his website, where you can order cd's. Scott D. Davis - solo rock concert piano music - Home I totally recommend the cd's as well. It's just nice to hear such heavy songs transformed into something so nice.