Why don't my patients turn up? (From Daily Echo)

KA wrote:
Maybe if it was not so expensive to phone and cancel then more ppl would.!

BillyTheKid wrote:
Some people are just forgetful. Others are irresponsible, and their lives consist of living from one crisis to the next. And many others find it difficult to get everything done at the right time against the backdrop of a modern and complex society.

Many doctor's and dentist's surgeries have little or no parking on the premises, and are surrounded by "double yellows" stretching for miles in all directions. Factor in road works, and you have the perfect recipe for patient delay. Bitterne Health Centre have lots of parking facilities, with a fair-sized car park opposite, and a lot of nearby road parking. I wonder if they have as many missed appointments - it would be interesting to know.

"Out of town" has been the solution for businesses, with plenty of parking and ease of access away from town centre traffic congestion. Perhaps that ought to be investigated.

Another interesting "missed appointments" comparison might be between those who live within walking distance of their surgery, and those who have to use public or private transport.

I'm not claiming to have the answers !
Just making a few suggestions is all.

sparkster wrote:
It doesn't take long to make a phone call to cancel an appointment, so that maybe someone else could have the benefit of it, its a matter of courtesy, if you write it down and put it in your diary/calendar you have it there to see, i have a hospital card but i still write it on the calendar when i get home

southy wrote:
Go back to the old way where you just turned up at the surgery with out appointment or phoned up for results or a home visit.

southy wrote:
Go back to the old way where you just turned up at the surgery with out appointment or phoned up for results or a home visit.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:
Go back to the old way where you just turned up at the surgery with out appointment or phoned up for results or a home visit.

Yes, I'm sure it would be great to have absolutely no idea how long a visit to the doctors will take. We can all just take endless days off work to go to the doctor.

SOULJACKER wrote:
Let's face it......

Shirley isn't called the "Mutant mile" for no reason, it is probably all them Polish that hang around drinking "Tyskie" & leaving their cans everywhere!

Just saying :P

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:
Go back to the old way where you just turned up at the surgery with out appointment or phoned up for results or a home visit.

That is actually a good suggestion. Our surgery used to have an open surgery each morning from 8am til 12pm, just turn up and wait. Then the afternoons were for appointments, they stopped it though!

IronLady2010 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:
Go back to the old way where you just turned up at the surgery with out appointment or phoned up for results or a home visit.

Yes, I'm sure it would be great to have absolutely no idea how long a visit to the doctors will take. We can all just take endless days off work to go to the doctor.

It used to work in our old surgery in Oxford Street. The mornings were walk in open surgery and the afternoons were for appointments.

Therefore if it was urgent you could be seen without an appointment, we used to wait for approx 30 minutes, but you could phone up and ask how big the wait was.

They now run a system whereby you have to phone up at 8am and the fasted finger gets an appointment that morning, the same thing at 12pm everyone has to phone and the fastest ones get a pm appointment.

They also have another GP who works the same times but for pre-booked appointments only.

The problem with pre-booked appointments is when you're feeling really ill and are constantly sleeping, it can be easy to miss the appointment.

Adlof Hilter wrote:
What a shame people are still peddling the idea that NHS 0844 numbers are "premium rate". They are NOT. They cost about 0.2p yes- POINT 2 p per minute over and above the standard BT rate, and enable NHS bodies to pay for more sophisticated phone systems so you can book your appointment by phone at midnight.
Of course, if you have a Vrgine landline Sir Richard charges you 14p per minute- that is not the NHS's fault.
Meanwhile patients expect the NHS to phone them on mobiles at 10p per minute!

southy wrote:
Tuby open up the post on "No apology from city councillor's wife after offensive remarks"

southy wrote:
Tuby open up the post on "No apology from city councillor's wife after offensive remarks"

Scrutinizer wrote:
The Echo is getting like the BBC, far too fussy about receiving comments about 'sensitive' stories. You don't get this to anything like the same extent on the U.S. news web sites.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:
Tuby open up the post on "No apology from city councillor's wife after offensive remarks"

Quite agree Southy. Could be some interesting comments..... Perhaps the Echo wont like the criticism

IronLady2010 wrote:
There are some circumstances whereby you may miss an appointment. If you are really ill for example and cannot get out of bed.

Let us also not forget some people don't have landlines and rely on PAYG mobiles, some may not have credit and are too ill to go to a phone box.

There are also those who simply cannot be bothered.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:
Tuby open up the post on "No apology from city councillor's wife after offensive remarks"

Quite agree Southy. Could be some interesting comments..... Perhaps the Echo wont like the criticism

Absolutely right.

Having done excellent bit of journalism by exposing this foul mouthed woman and her husband (NuLabour's Cllr. Thorpe who is either arrogant or stupid or combination of both, for failing to condemn the most disgraceful actions of his beloved wife, thus associating with her obnoxious views) why Echo's own website is not allowing us the people of Southampton insulted by her to respond about both in kind.

What happened to rules for fairness, which should provide victims these nasty NuLabourite creatures rights of reply?

Come on Ian Murray; stop your people imposing this most ridiculous censorship.

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

You are spot on.
.
The Echo has breached her anonimity and plastered it over three pages

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

You are spot on.
.
The Echo has breached her anonimity and plastered it over three pages

IMHO the story is not her comments BUT the Echo's actions re her privacy

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:
Tuby open up the post on "No apology from city councillor's wife after offensive remarks"

Quite agree Southy. Could be some interesting comments..... Perhaps the Echo wont like the criticism

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Yes I agree with those who think Mrs. Thorpe is entitled to her individual opinion.

Her views should not have reflected on her husband, BUT Cllr. Thorpe by expressing his appreciation for her support and by failing to condemn her insults thrown at people of Southampton (in his written statement) has made himself part of her offensive remarks.

Hardly surprising, considering arrogance and hypocrisy have become strong attributes of NuLabourites.

While I have always respected others right to hide behind assumed IDs on Internet, I have also made my position clear; I do not believe in hiding so have always posted stuff under my own name. So I can hardly share the view that Echo has behaved badly. Wish they expose few others, so we know who are posting one thing on this site and are behaving very differently in public.

If during election campaign she as strong supporter of her hubby had said the same in public, how may do anybody think would have still voted for him?

If partner of any Tory or Lib-Dem or some real socailist had behaved in this manner woule traitors of Labour the NuLabourites still be silent? I do not think so.

People should not be applying one set of standrads for likes of Southy and other for NuLabour's own miscrants. If it was wife of Southy many on this site would have made his life hell. I rest my case

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Yes I agree with those who think Mrs. Thorpe is entitled to her individual opinion.

Her views should not have reflected on her husband, BUT Cllr. Thorpe by expressing his appreciation for her support and by failing to condemn her insults thrown at people of Southampton (in his written statement) has made himself part of her offensive remarks.

Hardly surprising, considering arrogance and hypocrisy have become strong attributes of NuLabourites.

While I have always respected others right to hide behind assumed IDs on Internet, I have also made my position clear; I do not believe in hiding so have always posted stuff under my own name. So I can hardly share the view that Echo has behaved badly. Wish they expose few others, so we know who are posting one thing on this site and are behaving very differently in public.

If during election campaign she as strong supporter of her hubby had said the same in public, how may do anybody think would have still voted for him?

If partner of any Tory or Lib-Dem or some real socailist had behaved in this manner woule traitors of Labour the NuLabourites still be silent? I do not think so.

People should not be applying one set of standrads for likes of Southy and other for NuLabour's own miscrants. If it was wife of Southy many on this site would have made his life hell. I rest my case

G0Rf wrote:
Maybe if victor street surgery didn't have an 0844 premium rate phone number then people would bother to phone and cancel their appointments!
Doesn't take a genius to work out that most people local to this surgery only have mobile phones and are not prepared to pay to phone an 0844!
They should do a 3 strike rule, 3 DNA's and u get a fine!

Lone Ranger. wrote:
I apologise to all for hijacking this article re appontments .... but feel that the Echo are well out of order on their Thorpe "news"

IronLady2010 wrote:
There are some circumstances whereby you may miss an appointment. If you are really ill for example and cannot get out of bed.

Let us also not forget some people don't have landlines and rely on PAYG mobiles, some may not have credit and are too ill to go to a phone box.

There are also those who simply cannot be bothered.

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Maybe people are turning up, but find it difficult to locate a parking space,, At times there are no spaces near Victor Street...
By the time they have found somwhere, and walked if they can to the surgery they know they would be late anyway...
Luckily my GP has a large ample FREE car park and I don't think sufferes these problems as much...
Some surgeries are so booked up it can be weeks before you can get an appointment and I expect the ailment has gone, or they have gone to A&E instead, then forget to cancel...

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
There are some circumstances whereby you may miss an appointment. If you are really ill for example and cannot get out of bed.

Let us also not forget some people don't have landlines and rely on PAYG mobiles, some may not have credit and are too ill to go to a phone box.

There are also those who simply cannot be bothered.

Ironlady if you're that ill surely you or a family member will have booked a home visit?

IronLady2010 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
There are some circumstances whereby you may miss an appointment. If you are really ill for example and cannot get out of bed.

Let us also not forget some people don't have landlines and rely on PAYG mobiles, some may not have credit and are too ill to go to a phone box.

There are also those who simply cannot be bothered.

Ironlady if you're that ill surely you or a family member will have booked a home visit?

I must admit I have missed an appointment once. I was so ill I couldn't do anything, the last thing on my mind was phoning the surgery. It happens.....

IronLady2010 wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:
Tuby open up the post on "No apology from city councillor's wife after offensive remarks"

Quite agree Southy. Could be some interesting comments..... Perhaps the Echo wont like the criticism

Absolutely right.

Having done excellent bit of journalism by exposing this foul mouthed woman and her husband (NuLabour's Cllr. Thorpe who is either arrogant or stupid or combination of both, for failing to condemn the most disgraceful actions of his beloved wife, thus associating with her obnoxious views) why Echo's own website is not allowing us the people of Southampton insulted by her to respond about both in kind.

What happened to rules for fairness, which should provide victims these nasty NuLabourite creatures rights of reply?

Come on Ian Murray; stop your people imposing this most ridiculous censorship.

She is entitled to an opinion as we all are surely? She is not a Councillor, I assume she is just a normal person like me and you, so why can't she speak her mind?

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:
Tuby open up the post on "No apology from city councillor's wife after offensive remarks"

Quite agree Southy. Could be some interesting comments..... Perhaps the Echo wont like the criticism

Absolutely right.

Having done excellent bit of journalism by exposing this foul mouthed woman and her husband (NuLabour's Cllr. Thorpe who is either arrogant or stupid or combination of both, for failing to condemn the most disgraceful actions of his beloved wife, thus associating with her obnoxious views) why Echo's own website is not allowing us the people of Southampton insulted by her to respond about both in kind.

What happened to rules for fairness, which should provide victims these nasty NuLabourite creatures rights of reply?

Come on Ian Murray; stop your people imposing this most ridiculous censorship.

She is entitled to an opinion as we all are surely? She is not a Councillor, I assume she is just a normal person like me and you, so why can't she speak her mind?

Ironlady firstly if the doctors adopted Southy's way the A&E department would be inundated with minor cases of people who couldn't get to see their doctors.
As for Mr's Thorpe she is the wife of a guy who wanted to be a councillor & she printed/posted remarks insulting the very people her husband wanted to represent?
then when elected she still carried on?
he's standing by her? or is it because he actually agrees with her & was party to the posts?
how many politicians have had to resign over their partners actions?

IronLady2010 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:
Tuby open up the post on "No apology from city councillor's wife after offensive remarks"

Quite agree Southy. Could be some interesting comments..... Perhaps the Echo wont like the criticism

Absolutely right.

Having done excellent bit of journalism by exposing this foul mouthed woman and her husband (NuLabour's Cllr. Thorpe who is either arrogant or stupid or combination of both, for failing to condemn the most disgraceful actions of his beloved wife, thus associating with her obnoxious views) why Echo's own website is not allowing us the people of Southampton insulted by her to respond about both in kind.

What happened to rules for fairness, which should provide victims these nasty NuLabourite creatures rights of reply?

Come on Ian Murray; stop your people imposing this most ridiculous censorship.

She is entitled to an opinion as we all are surely? She is not a Councillor, I assume she is just a normal person like me and you, so why can't she speak her mind?

Ironlady firstly if the doctors adopted Southy's way the A&E department would be inundated with minor cases of people who couldn't get to see their doctors.
As for Mr's Thorpe she is the wife of a guy who wanted to be a councillor & she printed/posted remarks insulting the very people her husband wanted to represent?
then when elected she still carried on?
he's standing by her? or is it because he actually agrees with her & was party to the posts?
how many politicians have had to resign over their partners actions?

She isn't a Councillor though, fair play to her husband for standing up for his wife though ;-)

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

You are spot on.
.
The Echo has breached her anonimity and plastered it over three pages

IMHO the story is not her comments BUT the Echo's actions re her privacy

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

You are spot on.
.
The Echo has breached her anonimity and plastered it over three pages

IMHO the story is not her comments BUT the Echo's actions re her privacy

The Echo could not trace her directly, unless they are watching posters from the same IP and guessing.

Unless they have an insider in the Police who are tracing Ip's?

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:
Tuby open up the post on "No apology from city councillor's wife after offensive remarks"

Quite agree Southy. Could be some interesting comments..... Perhaps the Echo wont like the criticism

Absolutely right.

Having done excellent bit of journalism by exposing this foul mouthed woman and her husband (NuLabour's Cllr. Thorpe who is either arrogant or stupid or combination of both, for failing to condemn the most disgraceful actions of his beloved wife, thus associating with her obnoxious views) why Echo's own website is not allowing us the people of Southampton insulted by her to respond about both in kind.

What happened to rules for fairness, which should provide victims these nasty NuLabourite creatures rights of reply?

Come on Ian Murray; stop your people imposing this most ridiculous censorship.

She is entitled to an opinion as we all are surely? She is not a Councillor, I assume she is just a normal person like me and you, so why can't she speak her mind?

Ironlady firstly if the doctors adopted Southy's way the A&E department would be inundated with minor cases of people who couldn't get to see their doctors.
As for Mr's Thorpe she is the wife of a guy who wanted to be a councillor & she printed/posted remarks insulting the very people her husband wanted to represent?
then when elected she still carried on?
he's standing by her? or is it because he actually agrees with her & was party to the posts?
how many politicians have had to resign over their partners actions?

She isn't a Councillor though, fair play to her husband for standing up for his wife though ;-)

So if David Camerons wife said send back all non whites or single mums should be made to work or have their children taken away.
Or people on welfare should be put into chain gangs & forced to work this shouldn't have any reflection on him?
I usually agree with you but get real will you.
Have you seen the picture of his wife?
how she has the nerve to slate us is unbelievable. she ought to get of her arse & burn of that ugly fat & maybe stop taking the ugly pills.
I hope she doesn't live in Millbrook Green Park Estate & for her sake she lives in original Millbrook ( Freshfield Rd,Victory Street etc;) as if she lives in the estate I can't see them being to happy with her or her husband

freefinker wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

You are spot on.
.
The Echo has breached her anonimity and plastered it over three pages

IMHO the story is not her comments BUT the Echo's actions re her privacy

The Echo could not trace her directly, unless they are watching posters from the same IP and guessing.

Unless they have an insider in the Police who are tracing Ip's?

I seem to remember when I first registered to comment on this site I had to give my full personal details.

If I'm not wrong, then the ECHO has used her given personal info to perform a character assassination on an ordinary member of the public.

'Ordinary'? - yes, most certainly. None of us deserve to be judged and publically humiliated by the position or reputation of our spouses, family, relatives or, indeed, friends.

loosehead wrote:
Si if it was Moulton writing incognito slagging his electorate or a partner of a Tory or Liberal councillor doing it with the councillors blessing none of you would want to know?

loosehead wrote:

freefinker wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

You are spot on.
.
The Echo has breached her anonimity and plastered it over three pages

IMHO the story is not her comments BUT the Echo's actions re her privacy

The Echo could not trace her directly, unless they are watching posters from the same IP and guessing.

Unless they have an insider in the Police who are tracing Ip's?

I seem to remember when I first registered to comment on this site I had to give my full personal details.

If I'm not wrong, then the ECHO has used her given personal info to perform a character assassination on an ordinary member of the public.

'Ordinary'? - yes, most certainly. None of us deserve to be judged and publically humiliated by the position or reputation of our spouses, family, relatives or, indeed, friends.

What? she has a position of responsibility doesn't she?
isn't it hypocritical of her husband standing to represent people if his wife & possibly him feel like this about us the people of this city?

IronLady2010 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

freefinker wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

You are spot on.
.
The Echo has breached her anonimity and plastered it over three pages

IMHO the story is not her comments BUT the Echo's actions re her privacy

The Echo could not trace her directly, unless they are watching posters from the same IP and guessing.

Unless they have an insider in the Police who are tracing Ip's?

I seem to remember when I first registered to comment on this site I had to give my full personal details.

If I'm not wrong, then the ECHO has used her given personal info to perform a character assassination on an ordinary member of the public.

'Ordinary'? - yes, most certainly. None of us deserve to be judged and publically humiliated by the position or reputation of our spouses, family, relatives or, indeed, friends.

What? she has a position of responsibility doesn't she?
isn't it hypocritical of her husband standing to represent people if his wife & possibly him feel like this about us the people of this city?

SHE is a normal person, she isn't a Councillor.

Surely she is entitled to her own opinion unless she is under the thumb from the hubby?

Do you control your wife? Do you make sure she doesn't say things you don't want others to hear?

Be fair Loosehead :-)

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

freefinker wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

You are spot on.
.
The Echo has breached her anonimity and plastered it over three pages

IMHO the story is not her comments BUT the Echo's actions re her privacy

The Echo could not trace her directly, unless they are watching posters from the same IP and guessing.

Unless they have an insider in the Police who are tracing Ip's?

I seem to remember when I first registered to comment on this site I had to give my full personal details.

If I'm not wrong, then the ECHO has used her given personal info to perform a character assassination on an ordinary member of the public.

'Ordinary'? - yes, most certainly. None of us deserve to be judged and publically humiliated by the position or reputation of our spouses, family, relatives or, indeed, friends.

What? she has a position of responsibility doesn't she?
isn't it hypocritical of her husband standing to represent people if his wife & possibly him feel like this about us the people of this city?

SHE is a normal person, she isn't a Councillor.

Surely she is entitled to her own opinion unless she is under the thumb from the hubby?

Do you control your wife? Do you make sure she doesn't say things you don't want others to hear?

Be fair Loosehead :-)

In a cutting attack, she wrote: “It’s so amusing to see that the petty-minded, bigoted, inbred of Southampton have decided to have their say on here!

Anger “I only wish that the rest of you led fulfilling and worthwhile lives, but I expect in truth you do not.
I sincerely hope that your working lives are touched with redundancy and then you will truly know how it feels to be abandoned by your colleagues and career that has served you well... this man has given more to society than portrayed in this newspaper, but you cretins who are quick to stand and point will never realise this, get a life.”

And Mrs Thorpe further angered campaigners fighting to save the home and job of long-serving cemetery superintendent Jim Emery.
so you feel this is the right thing for a councillors wife to say?
For her information my father came from Liverpool & my mother came from Southampton how does this make me inbred?

loosehead wrote:
Si if it was Moulton writing incognito slagging his electorate or a partner of a Tory or Liberal councillor doing it with the councillors blessing none of you would want to know?

Adlof Hilter wrote:
What a shame people are still peddling the idea that NHS 0844 numbers are "premium rate". They are NOT. They cost about 0.2p yes- POINT 2 p per minute over and above the standard BT rate, and enable NHS bodies to pay for more sophisticated phone systems so you can book your appointment by phone at midnight.
Of course, if you have a Vrgine landline Sir Richard charges you 14p per minute- that is not the NHS's fault.
Meanwhile patients expect the NHS to phone them on mobiles at 10p per minute!

moocowpoorchick wrote:
I was with this surgery most of my adult life but have recently moved as I could not get appointment, the arrogant rude receptionists are beyond belief, I work fulltime and rarely need to visit the gp when I do want an appointment I get told no as I have called to early or the book diary is not open for appointments etc etc, Drs at victor street are great but appointments and reception is the worst I have encountered in any walk of life!

Lone Ranger. wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:
Tuby open up the post on "No apology from city councillor's wife after offensive remarks"

Quite agree Southy. Could be some interesting comments..... Perhaps the Echo wont like the criticism

Absolutely right.

Having done excellent bit of journalism by exposing this foul mouthed woman and her husband (NuLabour's Cllr. Thorpe who is either arrogant or stupid or combination of both, for failing to condemn the most disgraceful actions of his beloved wife, thus associating with her obnoxious views) why Echo's own website is not allowing us the people of Southampton insulted by her to respond about both in kind.

What happened to rules for fairness, which should provide victims these nasty NuLabourite creatures rights of reply?

Come on Ian Murray; stop your people imposing this most ridiculous censorship.

She is entitled to an opinion as we all are surely? She is not a Councillor, I assume she is just a normal person like me and you, so why can't she speak her mind?

Ironlady firstly if the doctors adopted Southy's way the A&E department would be inundated with minor cases of people who couldn't get to see their doctors.
As for Mr's Thorpe she is the wife of a guy who wanted to be a councillor & she printed/posted remarks insulting the very people her husband wanted to represent?
then when elected she still carried on?
he's standing by her? or is it because he actually agrees with her & was party to the posts?
how many politicians have had to resign over their partners actions?

She isn't a Councillor though, fair play to her husband for standing up for his wife though ;-)

So if David Camerons wife said send back all non whites or single mums should be made to work or have their children taken away.
Or people on welfare should be put into chain gangs & forced to work this shouldn't have any reflection on him?
I usually agree with you but get real will you.
Have you seen the picture of his wife?
how she has the nerve to slate us is unbelievable. she ought to get of her arse & burn of that ugly fat & maybe stop taking the ugly pills.
I hope she doesn't live in Millbrook Green Park Estate & for her sake she lives in original Millbrook ( Freshfield Rd,Victory Street etc;) as if she lives in the estate I can't see them being to happy with her or her husband

You and your comments are a disgrace.
.

IronLady2010 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

freefinker wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

You are spot on.
.
The Echo has breached her anonimity and plastered it over three pages

IMHO the story is not her comments BUT the Echo's actions re her privacy

The Echo could not trace her directly, unless they are watching posters from the same IP and guessing.

Unless they have an insider in the Police who are tracing Ip's?

I seem to remember when I first registered to comment on this site I had to give my full personal details.

If I'm not wrong, then the ECHO has used her given personal info to perform a character assassination on an ordinary member of the public.

'Ordinary'? - yes, most certainly. None of us deserve to be judged and publically humiliated by the position or reputation of our spouses, family, relatives or, indeed, friends.

What? she has a position of responsibility doesn't she?
isn't it hypocritical of her husband standing to represent people if his wife & possibly him feel like this about us the people of this city?

SHE is a normal person, she isn't a Councillor.

Surely she is entitled to her own opinion unless she is under the thumb from the hubby?

Do you control your wife? Do you make sure she doesn't say things you don't want others to hear?

Be fair Loosehead :-)

jonnyx wrote:

SOULJACKER wrote:
Let's face it......

Shirley isn't called the "Mutant mile" for no reason, it is probably all them Polish that hang around drinking "Tyskie" & leaving their cans everywhere!

Just saying :P

xenophobic pr**k.

loosehead wrote:
Back to appointments.In my surgery on a Monday morning if you phone in you can get an emergency appointment for that day. if you've been well enough to book an appointment you must be well enough to phone & cancel. the idea of a walk in surgery wouldn't work look at what happened to the NHS walk in surgery in Shirley they were queuing up at 4-6 in the morning for colds & all other types of minor ailments

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

freefinker wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

You are spot on.
.
The Echo has breached her anonimity and plastered it over three pages

IMHO the story is not her comments BUT the Echo's actions re her privacy

The Echo could not trace her directly, unless they are watching posters from the same IP and guessing.

Unless they have an insider in the Police who are tracing Ip's?

I seem to remember when I first registered to comment on this site I had to give my full personal details.

If I'm not wrong, then the ECHO has used her given personal info to perform a character assassination on an ordinary member of the public.

'Ordinary'? - yes, most certainly. None of us deserve to be judged and publically humiliated by the position or reputation of our spouses, family, relatives or, indeed, friends.

What? she has a position of responsibility doesn't she?
isn't it hypocritical of her husband standing to represent people if his wife & possibly him feel like this about us the people of this city?

SHE is a normal person, she isn't a Councillor.

Surely she is entitled to her own opinion unless she is under the thumb from the hubby?

Do you control your wife? Do you make sure she doesn't say things you don't want others to hear?

Be fair Loosehead :-)

Ironlady I think two wrongs have been committed here.
1/ the Echo should not have revealed her true identity.
2/ sha a councillors wife should not have printed these remarks.
I still feel he must have agreed with it & a formal apology should be made by both Mr's Thorpe & the Echo

Vonnie wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Back to appointments.In my surgery on a Monday morning if you phone in you can get an emergency appointment for that day. if you've been well enough to book an appointment you must be well enough to phone & cancel. the idea of a walk in surgery wouldn't work look at what happened to the NHS walk in surgery in Shirley they were queuing up at 4-6 in the morning for colds & all other types of minor ailments

Loosehead. Part of the reason why there were queues at the walk-in surgery in Shirley was because doctor's surgeries in the vicinity - including Victor Street - were telling patients to go there for blood tests and for minor ailments rather than use up the doctor's time. That is what walk-in surgeries were supposed to be for. The fact that they were used to capacity and had queues should have told the medical profession something. ie. there are more patients than doctor's surgeries to serve them.
The difference in the service received and the way surgeries are managed is different from area to area, and whether they are NHS funded or NHS supported. That should never be, but it is so.
Dr Tongue and his colleagues are looking in the wrong place to put the blame. Yes, there are some lazy and rude patients who would not attempt to ring to cancel an appointment, but in the numbers that he is talking about??? I think not.
There are other reasons, some acceptable, some not, but until GP surgeries get their own house in order so that patients, not staff and financial considerations, come first, this problem will continue.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

freefinker wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. well, here we go, we ARE commenting.

I think she is entitled to her views.
She is NOT councillor Thorpe.
Why the indignation now?
She took part in the cut and thrust of a debate.
No one was calling for her public humiliation at the time, so why now?

My concern is that almost all of us post on this site anonymously, as she did. OK, she is the spouse of a councillor. But that does not make it OK to strip away her anonymity, which we all anticipate will be respected by the Echo, just for a fairly insignificant news item.

You are spot on.
.
The Echo has breached her anonimity and plastered it over three pages

IMHO the story is not her comments BUT the Echo's actions re her privacy

The Echo could not trace her directly, unless they are watching posters from the same IP and guessing.

Unless they have an insider in the Police who are tracing Ip's?

I seem to remember when I first registered to comment on this site I had to give my full personal details.

If I'm not wrong, then the ECHO has used her given personal info to perform a character assassination on an ordinary member of the public.

'Ordinary'? - yes, most certainly. None of us deserve to be judged and publically humiliated by the position or reputation of our spouses, family, relatives or, indeed, friends.

What? she has a position of responsibility doesn't she?
isn't it hypocritical of her husband standing to represent people if his wife & possibly him feel like this about us the people of this city?

SHE is a normal person, she isn't a Councillor.

Surely she is entitled to her own opinion unless she is under the thumb from the hubby?

Do you control your wife? Do you make sure she doesn't say things you don't want others to hear?

Be fair Loosehead :-)

Ironlady I think two wrongs have been committed here.
1/ the Echo should not have revealed her true identity.
2/ sha a councillors wife should not have printed these remarks.
I still feel he must have agreed with it & a formal apology should be made by both Mr's Thorpe & the Echo

Loosehead you may have noticed Echo has opened comments on foul mouthed wife of Cllr. Thorpe, who rather than condemning her remarks has appreciated her actions, thus making himself part of the offensive remarks. But you are attacking him because he is her husband, which is to say the least is less than even weak reason.

TEBOURBA wrote:
Many thanks to the many cretins who hi-jacked the very important article regarding the waste of NHS resources by Dr Tongue with their comments about Thorpe.

TEBOURBA wrote:
Many thanks to the many cretins who hi-jacked the very important article regarding the waste of NHS resources by Dr Tongue with their comments about Thorpe.

G0Rf wrote:

Adlof Hilter wrote:
What a shame people are still peddling the idea that NHS 0844 numbers are "premium rate". They are NOT. They cost about 0.2p yes- POINT 2 p per minute over and above the standard BT rate, and enable NHS bodies to pay for more sophisticated phone systems so you can book your appointment by phone at midnight.
Of course, if you have a Vrgine landline Sir Richard charges you 14p per minute- that is not the NHS's fault.
Meanwhile patients expect the NHS to phone them on mobiles at 10p per minute!

quoted from BT website...."Calls to 0844 and 0871 numbers are not free and are often used as premium rate support lines"



Oh and...why are doctors always running behind schedule? if all patients turned up then they would constantly running 30+mins behind.

Vonnie wrote:

moocowpoorchick wrote:
I was with this surgery most of my adult life but have recently moved as I could not get appointment, the arrogant rude receptionists are beyond belief, I work fulltime and rarely need to visit the gp when I do want an appointment I get told no as I have called to early or the book diary is not open for appointments etc etc, Drs at victor street are great but appointments and reception is the worst I have encountered in any walk of life!

As a patient of this surgery, my experience exactly, moocowpoorchick
Additionally, trying to phone to make or cancel an appointment - forget it. There are hundreds of people trying to get through on the one line in the half hour that it is open to take appointments.
I made a complaint thru the right channels and to my MP but got nowhere. I was even told that I could not make an appointment to see the surgery manager, but had to write. I did so -- nothing resolved.
The doctors are great but the system at Victor Street stinks.

Inform Al wrote:

TEBOURBA wrote:
Many thanks to the many cretins who hi-jacked the very important article regarding the waste of NHS resources by Dr Tongue with their comments about Thorpe.

Don't consider it hijacked as multitasking is something most of us can deal with, anyway it's the Echo's fault.

Adlof Hilter wrote:

Vonnie wrote:

moocowpoorchick wrote: I was with this surgery most of my adult life but have recently moved as I could not get appointment, the arrogant rude receptionists are beyond belief, I work fulltime and rarely need to visit the gp when I do want an appointment I get told no as I have called to early or the book diary is not open for appointments etc etc, Drs at victor street are great but appointments and reception is the worst I have encountered in any walk of life!

As a patient of this surgery, my experience exactly, moocowpoorchick Additionally, trying to phone to make or cancel an appointment - forget it. There are hundreds of people trying to get through on the one line in the half hour that it is open to take appointments. I made a complaint thru the right channels and to my MP but got nowhere. I was even told that I could not make an appointment to see the surgery manager, but had to write. I did so -- nothing resolved. The doctors are great but the system at Victor Street stinks.

Er... there ISN'T just one line- that is true for almost all surgeries now. That is precisely what the 0844 number helps with- multiple lines and call queuing. Why not register for on line access ? You clearly have the internet!

freefinker wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote: The Echo is getting like the BBC, far too fussy about receiving comments about 'sensitive' stories. You don't get this to anything like the same extent on the U.S. news web sites.

.. oh yes, but when the Echo says: - "The remarks were posted anonymously under the username “commnurse” – but the Daily Echo can reveal that they were written by Mrs Thorpe. " they are using the info they have held on her since she first registered to comment in these columns. We may 'hide' behind our made up names, but remember this story - it is not beyond the Echo to expose you with personal information you thought was confidential.

loosehead wrote:
Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote: Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

Sorry but after taking total abuse & threats open or hidden I would love to know who these people actually are? this Lady was upset but in her temper lashed out at all of us & for that I feel we deserve an apology. If we had to print our real names some of these threats or insults would not be printed but yes I can see your point

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote: Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

Sorry but after taking total abuse & threats open or hidden I would love to know who these people actually are? this Lady was upset but in her temper lashed out at all of us & for that I feel we deserve an apology. If we had to print our real names some of these threats or insults would not be printed but yes I can see your point

Yes, if people did have to print their real names they would, I'm sure, be a lot more careful about what they say on-line. But I, myself, still much prefer to adopt the anonymous option and stick with an assumed name. I have to say though, that in a way I do kind of admire those who don't, eg. Paramjit Bahia and yourself in this respect, even if I don't necessarilly agree with some of both your comments.

Georgem wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote: Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

Sorry but after taking total abuse & threats open or hidden I would love to know who these people actually are? this Lady was upset but in her temper lashed out at all of us & for that I feel we deserve an apology. If we had to print our real names some of these threats or insults would not be printed but yes I can see your point

Yes, if people did have to print their real names they would, I'm sure, be a lot more careful about what they say on-line. But I, myself, still much prefer to adopt the anonymous option and stick with an assumed name. I have to say though, that in a way I do kind of admire those who don't, eg. Paramjit Bahia and yourself in this respect, even if I don't necessarilly agree with some of both your comments.

And southy, more or less. Ok, that's not his real name, but most of us know who he is, and he does nothing to hide it. Got to give him that.

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

Sorry but after taking total abuse & threats open or hidden I would love to know who these people actually are?
this Lady was upset but in her temper lashed out at all of us & for that I feel we deserve an apology.
If we had to print our real names some of these threats or insults would not be printed but yes I can see your point

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

Sorry but after taking total abuse & threats open or hidden I would love to know who these people actually are?
this Lady was upset but in her temper lashed out at all of us & for that I feel we deserve an apology.
If we had to print our real names some of these threats or insults would not be printed but yes I can see your point

Yes she lashed out at US, not the people of Southampton as the Echo story so blatantly claims. In fact at times I tend to agree with her when she states that all the inbreds etc of Southampton are posting here. As I count no more than 4 or 5 postees as possibly in this class, she is not guilty of defaming Southampton's residents. The Echo should be ashamed of it's open one sided political stance which caused me to stop buying it, except on Saturdays for the TV information some time ago.

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

Sorry but after taking total abuse & threats open or hidden I would love to know who these people actually are?
this Lady was upset but in her temper lashed out at all of us & for that I feel we deserve an apology.
If we had to print our real names some of these threats or insults would not be printed but yes I can see your point

Yes she lashed out at US, not the people of Southampton as the Echo story so blatantly claims. In fact at times I tend to agree with her when she states that all the inbreds etc of Southampton are posting here. As I count no more than 4 or 5 postees as possibly in this class, she is not guilty of defaming Southampton's residents. The Echo should be ashamed of it's open one sided political stance which caused me to stop buying it, except on Saturdays for the TV information some time ago.

so you like being called an inbreed by someone who looks like her then Mr Keeble?

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

Sorry but after taking total abuse & threats open or hidden I would love to know who these people actually are?
this Lady was upset but in her temper lashed out at all of us & for that I feel we deserve an apology.
If we had to print our real names some of these threats or insults would not be printed but yes I can see your point

Yes she lashed out at US, not the people of Southampton as the Echo story so blatantly claims. In fact at times I tend to agree with her when she states that all the inbreds etc of Southampton are posting here. As I count no more than 4 or 5 postees as possibly in this class, she is not guilty of defaming Southampton's residents. The Echo should be ashamed of it's open one sided political stance which caused me to stop buying it, except on Saturdays for the TV information some time ago.

so you like being called an inbreed by someone who looks like her then Mr Keeble?

One day perhaps you will get my name right, in the mean time as I have had a few insults from you without having a hissy fit, I feel she is entitled to say what she likes on this site, in the same way as your obnoxious comment about her looks.

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

Sorry but after taking total abuse & threats open or hidden I would love to know who these people actually are?
this Lady was upset but in her temper lashed out at all of us & for that I feel we deserve an apology.
If we had to print our real names some of these threats or insults would not be printed but yes I can see your point

Yes she lashed out at US, not the people of Southampton as the Echo story so blatantly claims. In fact at times I tend to agree with her when she states that all the inbreds etc of Southampton are posting here. As I count no more than 4 or 5 postees as possibly in this class, she is not guilty of defaming Southampton's residents. The Echo should be ashamed of it's open one sided political stance which caused me to stop buying it, except on Saturdays for the TV information some time ago.

so you like being called an inbreed by someone who looks like her then Mr Keeble?

One day perhaps you will get my name right, in the mean time as I have had a few insults from you without having a hissy fit, I feel she is entitled to say what she likes on this site, in the same way as your obnoxious comment about her looks.

It's Alan Keeble isn't it?
I have given up with a Person like you this so called Lady ripped into posters calling them inbred & numerous other names .
maybe if her & her husband went to a gym she wouldn't have had so much pent up anger but she openly attacked posters over a subject her father should have posted on.
I don't remember it & I didn't comment on it so please stop trying to guess the intelligence of me & other posters until you actually find out if you have any

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

Sorry but after taking total abuse & threats open or hidden I would love to know who these people actually are?
this Lady was upset but in her temper lashed out at all of us & for that I feel we deserve an apology.
If we had to print our real names some of these threats or insults would not be printed but yes I can see your point

Yes she lashed out at US, not the people of Southampton as the Echo story so blatantly claims. In fact at times I tend to agree with her when she states that all the inbreds etc of Southampton are posting here. As I count no more than 4 or 5 postees as possibly in this class, she is not guilty of defaming Southampton's residents. The Echo should be ashamed of it's open one sided political stance which caused me to stop buying it, except on Saturdays for the TV information some time ago.

so you like being called an inbreed by someone who looks like her then Mr Keeble?

One day perhaps you will get my name right, in the mean time as I have had a few insults from you without having a hissy fit, I feel she is entitled to say what she likes on this site, in the same way as your obnoxious comment about her looks.

It's Alan Keeble isn't it?
I have given up with a Person like you this so called Lady ripped into posters calling them inbred & numerous other names .
maybe if her & her husband went to a gym she wouldn't have had so much pent up anger but she openly attacked posters over a subject her father should have posted on.
I don't remember it & I didn't comment on it so please stop trying to guess the intelligence of me & other posters until you actually find out if you have any

In your case I don't need to guess, you still haven't got my name right, apart from my Christian name.

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

Sorry but after taking total abuse & threats open or hidden I would love to know who these people actually are?
this Lady was upset but in her temper lashed out at all of us & for that I feel we deserve an apology.
If we had to print our real names some of these threats or insults would not be printed but yes I can see your point

Yes she lashed out at US, not the people of Southampton as the Echo story so blatantly claims. In fact at times I tend to agree with her when she states that all the inbreds etc of Southampton are posting here. As I count no more than 4 or 5 postees as possibly in this class, she is not guilty of defaming Southampton's residents. The Echo should be ashamed of it's open one sided political stance which caused me to stop buying it, except on Saturdays for the TV information some time ago.

so you like being called an inbreed by someone who looks like her then Mr Keeble?

One day perhaps you will get my name right, in the mean time as I have had a few insults from you without having a hissy fit, I feel she is entitled to say what she likes on this site, in the same way as your obnoxious comment about her looks.

It's Alan Keeble isn't it?
I have given up with a Person like you this so called Lady ripped into posters calling them inbred & numerous other names .
maybe if her & her husband went to a gym she wouldn't have had so much pent up anger but she openly attacked posters over a subject her father should have posted on.
I don't remember it & I didn't comment on it so please stop trying to guess the intelligence of me & other posters until you actually find out if you have any

In your case I don't need to guess, you still haven't got my name right, apart from my Christian name.

So come on spell you're surname is it Kebble?

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

Sorry but after taking total abuse & threats open or hidden I would love to know who these people actually are?
this Lady was upset but in her temper lashed out at all of us & for that I feel we deserve an apology.
If we had to print our real names some of these threats or insults would not be printed but yes I can see your point

Yes she lashed out at US, not the people of Southampton as the Echo story so blatantly claims. In fact at times I tend to agree with her when she states that all the inbreds etc of Southampton are posting here. As I count no more than 4 or 5 postees as possibly in this class, she is not guilty of defaming Southampton's residents. The Echo should be ashamed of it's open one sided political stance which caused me to stop buying it, except on Saturdays for the TV information some time ago.

so you like being called an inbreed by someone who looks like her then Mr Keeble?

One day perhaps you will get my name right, in the mean time as I have had a few insults from you without having a hissy fit, I feel she is entitled to say what she likes on this site, in the same way as your obnoxious comment about her looks.

It's Alan Keeble isn't it?
I have given up with a Person like you this so called Lady ripped into posters calling them inbred & numerous other names .
maybe if her & her husband went to a gym she wouldn't have had so much pent up anger but she openly attacked posters over a subject her father should have posted on.
I don't remember it & I didn't comment on it so please stop trying to guess the intelligence of me & other posters until you actually find out if you have any

In your case I don't need to guess, you still haven't got my name right, apart from my Christian name.

So come on spell you're surname is it Kebble?

No, wrong again. Are we playing 20 questions?

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Why don't we all publish our real names? I did on the Thorpe site to prove I had nothing to hide but it's gone?

But it's not all about having "...nothing to hide...", as you put it, is it?. We all know - or should by now - that people who reveal their real name on the internet expose themselves to being tracked down by some means or other by individuals and various organisations, and caused all manner of problems all over the place on-line and beyond. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious really.

Sorry but after taking total abuse & threats open or hidden I would love to know who these people actually are?
this Lady was upset but in her temper lashed out at all of us & for that I feel we deserve an apology.
If we had to print our real names some of these threats or insults would not be printed but yes I can see your point

Yes she lashed out at US, not the people of Southampton as the Echo story so blatantly claims. In fact at times I tend to agree with her when she states that all the inbreds etc of Southampton are posting here. As I count no more than 4 or 5 postees as possibly in this class, she is not guilty of defaming Southampton's residents. The Echo should be ashamed of it's open one sided political stance which caused me to stop buying it, except on Saturdays for the TV information some time ago.

so you like being called an inbreed by someone who looks like her then Mr Keeble?

One day perhaps you will get my name right, in the mean time as I have had a few insults from you without having a hissy fit, I feel she is entitled to say what she likes on this site, in the same way as your obnoxious comment about her looks.

It's Alan Keeble isn't it?
I have given up with a Person like you this so called Lady ripped into posters calling them inbred & numerous other names .
maybe if her & her husband went to a gym she wouldn't have had so much pent up anger but she openly attacked posters over a subject her father should have posted on.
I don't remember it & I didn't comment on it so please stop trying to guess the intelligence of me & other posters until you actually find out if you have any

In your case I don't need to guess, you still haven't got my name right, apart from my Christian name.

So come on spell you're surname is it Kebble?

No, wrong again. Are we playing 20 questions?

No I was copying a spelling of you're name in the Echo so why is it wrong aren't you that guy who's a UKIP member but is also aligned to Labour?