Just thought I’d share the latest fix for another classic Ducati intermittent fault.

I’d been having a few electrical problems, but tracked it down to a dodgy loom connector. Lots of stuff was going mental, lights were coming on, rev needles were moving by themselves. Replaced the loom. Sorted.

But some extra problems are still hanging about and I’m never sure if the loom may still have a dodgy connector. One problem was that my rear brake light would stay on. But not always. Grrrr! Mostly when I started her up, the light would be permanently on (like I had the brake pressed). I’d go for a ride and when I got back, the brake light was working normally. Maybe 40% repeatable.

Looked online and lots of chat about microswitches needing replacing, losing a dowel rod and foot brake sensors needing replacing. I wiggled everything in a half-arsed attempt to track it down. No joy. I disconnected the rear brake sensor (there’s a really obvious connector just above the clutch cover). The light stayed on. Must mean it’s the front brake somehow.

I turned my attention to the tiny microswitch behind the front brake lever. It had no obvious connector so I assumed it plugged into the headstock loom, which needs the front of the bike disassembling to reach. Not fun. I squirted it with WD40. Pressed it loads. No change.

I decided to unscrew the microswitch to check it. There are two tiny flathead screws and even more fiddly bolts at the back. Make sure you dont lose them! After removing it (brake lights were still on), I pressed the microswitch… brake lights went off. Eureka! Turns out the microswitch had moved maybe 1/10th of a mm back and now didn’t work. The switch’s natural state is on. You have to press it up against a little push-rod that connects to the lever to activate it… and switch the lights off. Confusing I know. When you pull the brake lever, it push-rod falls away (as there’s no brake lever pushing against it) and it deactivated the switch… which goes to it’s normal ‘brake light on’ state again. Makes sense I guess.

Anyhoo, long and rambling way of saying I simply reseated my microswitch a hair’s width closer to the push-rod / lever and it was enough to press the microswitch (turning the brake light off). Don’t move it too far in though, as it will require the brake lever to be pulled in a fair way before the rod has moved back far enough to deactivate the switch (turning the light on).

May not sort your problem out, but it’s definitely something to check.

Gouldn’t help notice this little gem. For those not in the know, Google Ads are ‘smart’ enough to read the pages content and then serve up a relevant ad that has the same sorts of categories. In this case, a tech blog full of gaming hardware… cool, hit me with an Xbox ad. Shat’s not to like. Only the post was about epic fails and the ad, in prime spot at the top, was the first thing you read. Oops.

And it’s a gaff that keeps on giving, what with the call to action having a typo an all. Unless one really has to “Sing up” to Xbox Live with is mildly plausible I guess.

Of course, it was a complete fluke and not something that you could really guard against so I’m only mentioning it for a giggle or two at Google’s algorithm’s expense, or more specifically, the ad buyer. Again, for those not in the know, adding relevant “Negative Keywords” is part of the media buy setup for AdWords. One would argue, and I love the irony, that ‘fail’ should be added to the next batch.

For what it’s worth, the original Mashable article is here. Wonder what poor sod will be there now?

First up, I really hated that Windows ad campaign “That was my idea”. No, it wasn’t. It was someone else who probaly worked for Apple, MIT, Microsoft or Xerox. It wasn’t your idea and claiming it is is lying. Stop it.

Anyway, that’s the title rant over. So they previewed the iPad 2 yesterday. I watched the video and found myself nodding and ticking off mental tick-boxes in the sky. Tick boxes put there by my dull disappointment at the original iPad. I wasn’t just “not fussed”, I actively didn’t like it. I detailed them in my snappily named post “20 reasons why the iPad sucks“. Interestingly, Googling “iPad sucks” (in quotes) you get 39,700 exact matches. “Mac sucks” gets 35,600 and “iPod sucks” gets 43,000. So a device that’s been out barely a year has roughly the same amount of “sucks” as a product from the same company that has been out for 10 years (iPod) and 37 years (Mac). Not very scientific but I clearly wasn’t alone.

So iPad 2. How did it stack up against my original gripe list?

1) It’s heavy. Fixed

2) It’s sharp and hurts. Fixed

3) It’s hard to hold. Not Fixed

4) It spins. Fixed

5) It’s symmetrical Not Fixed

6) It’s not stereo. Not Fixed

7) It takes AGES to recharge. Unknown

8 ) It has flaky Wifi. Fixed

9) It looks obvious. Not Fixed

10) It doesn’t play Flash. Not Fixed

11) It crashes. Unknown

12) The menu is too airy. Not Fixed

14) The keyboard tries too hard. Not Fixed

15) It has no Word Processor. Not Fixed

16) It has no cover. Fixed-ish

17) It’s not so portable. Fixed-ish

18) It doesn’t have a stand. Fixed-ish

19) It has no camera. Fixed

20) It’s not so new. Fixed

So that’s a very scientific…

Fixed: 9

Not Fixed: 8

Unknown: 2

So will I buy one yet? The Flash thing is still a bit of a stinker for me. And a few of the things I’d like to do using HTML are still painfully awkward (online timesheets or weekly shop).

But it has PhotoBooth! My kids will love it and make the same daft video and faces they don on my mac. So, if I managed to get enough money together or not go on holiday this year, you know what, yes, probably! So that’s nice. The world can sleep easy tonight.

So after last night’s Barnet Council whitewash debacle, it seems a certain Mr Coleman is under slightly more pressure then he anticipated. Probably still enough for his broad shoulders (or large head?) for the moment but it certainly didn’t go quite to plan. Another great writeup by The Barnet Eye (definitely a good read), an article in the Evening Standard and a piece in the Hendon Times, it seems “the peasants are revolting”.

Not only that but David Attfield, an East Finchley resident and lawyer managed to catch Brian Coleman red handed telling lies to justify the CPZ prize rise. Not difficult to do it seems as Mr Coleman seems less than efficient at the best of times, but nonetheless, a great example of brains over brawn.

David will also be on the BBC News tomorrow (not yet sure of time slot). Will keep you posted. If there is a legal fight to be had, we have the ammunition, we have the support and I for one will dig into my pocket and contribute!

Click the image above to enlarge. Right-click and ‘save as’ to save or get the high-quality PDF file.

UPDATE

Can you spare time on Monday 14 February?

Tory Barnet council will hold a budget meeting on Monday 14 February 2011 at 7 pm in Hendon Town Hall (Address/Map: the Burroughs, Hendon NW4 4BG). There will be a bunch of us there, making a noise so please come along and show your support if you can! I suggest getting there between 6 and 6.30pm to make sure you get seen as the councillors arrive.

DEPRESSING UPDATE

It seems our elected Councillor, Brian Coleman has done what we all feared, gone ahead with the CPZ price increases!

Read a gritty account of the meeting here. You’ll realise what were up against and why we are constantly ignored by the Conservative run Barnet council. Very sad day for democracy. Especially when Cameron made a point today of saying the people have a voice and a part to play in the “big society” and that government bureaucracy isn’t the way forward. As usual, hot air and broken promises. I’m not usually into politics but this makes me really cross… Ok, rant over. Now logging on to EBay to sell my kids toys to pay for Brian Coleman’s bonus/mistakes/greed, oh, I mean the budget deficit…

Short of time?
PLEASE SIGN THIS ONLINE PETITION

Got 5 minutes? Read on…

I live in a great part of London called East Finchley. For those that live there, it’s a hidden gem. A secret ‘Dad’s Army’ land where people still talk over the garden fence. We have street parties twice a year, I know all of my neighbours (and most of my street) by their first names and we look after each-others’ cats when they’re on holiday. We even have a tube station, an independent cinema and we’re lucky enough to NOT have a McDonalds.

I love East Finchley a lot. Many people do and we’re passionate about keeping it a nice place to live, bring up children and grow old gracefully. We’re an easy going bunch but when something pisses us off, we know how to fight. Our local mascot ‘Archie‘ the Archer would be proud of us. We’ve kept our high street local by seeing off Waitrose, saved local parks, fought crazy planning applications, stopped commuter rat-runs and had pedestrian crossings installed. We’ve even changed the borough boundary.

There is one subject however, that most of us dread. The three letters; ‘C P Z’ or Controlled Parking Zone. It started out ok. A large college was opening up down the road and commuters were parking in local roads to jump on the tube and go to work. Ten years ago, parking was a bit of an issue. So the council put in a CPZ for residents. The rules were simple:

• Enforce the parking only on work days. Leave the weekends for socialising and shopping
• Charge residents just enough to run the scheme.
• Enforce the CPZ for an hour during the day to dissuade ‘all day’ parking but allow residents to have visitors pop by
• If you did have a visitor during the CPZ, issue them with a visitor voucher at a nominal cost (40p)

All was well. The commuters went somewhere else. We could park again. this was especially relieving for those with young families or the elderly.

The Barnet Council started to get greedy. They saw the potential of the CPZ as an income stream. They rocked up one day and changed the signs from a 1 hour enforceable period to 8.5 hours, from 10am to 6.30 at night. Oh, and all day Saturday too. We weren’t consulted and it started to dawn on us how draconian this was. Sure, it worked for some but for many it didn’t.

Some years later, Barnet agreed to run a consultation on potentially changing the times. The questionnaire was laughable in its bias and sneaky in the way it asked questions so that the results could be manipulated. As we all expected, the whitewashed results came out, but it was also clear residents didn’t like the scheme but Barnet ticked a box – “consultation done… tick” – and carried on.

The price of residents’ permits rose. Visitor permits more than doubled in price. Yet Barnet council ran the scheme so badly, they made a huge loss. And we’re talking millions.

So now the latest jab in the eye. Barnet, or more specifically, Conservative Councillor Brian Coleman (or Mr Toad as he is trending on Twitter) has decided to go for broke. Don’t know Brian Coleman? Maybe you do… [fireman][campaign][expenses][google]. It’s his last year in office I believe, budgets are tight and the spreadsheet looks horrific. All under his watch. The £3 million transport budget has a £1.4 million (50%) hole in it and guess where the money comes from… Yep, the endless, faceless, deep-pockets of those CPZ residents. But here’s the catch. Only about 20% of Barnet has a CPZ scheme and even then, only 5% have the ‘all-day’ version we have. The other 80% can just park outside their house for free or are wealthy enough to have a large house with off-street parking. Did you spot the catch? 20% of us are paying that £1.4 million – the other 80% pay nothing. We’re paying for ALL of Barnet’s roads to be maintained. And yes, we’ve already paid our road tax, petrol duty and our council tax, not to mention income tax which pays for our council’s budgets in the first place.

So what? Same old same old I guess. Keep paying the same old costs. Not quite. That debt needs filling, not only to make Councillor Coleman look less incompetent but also so that the numbers look good so that it’s attractive to the private sector. Yes, he’s planning to privatise the parking service in the near future. Nice touch. We all love private parking enforcement officers. So here’s the genius. Simply fiddle with the numbers until the numbers say what they need to. So what if a resident’s parking permit was £40… make it £100. Those expensive £1 visitors permits… make those £4 each. That 3 month temporary permit at £37… make that £250. Oh, and don’t tell anyone. Just keep it to yourselves and put it on the agenda to rubber-stamp at the next meeting. Only we found out…

The full details of the proposed changes are set out in a PDF document located on Barnet’s web site. See pages 9 and 10 for the CPZ charges, and pages 12 and 13 for the Pay and Display charges.

So last week, we got together in an-impromptu East Finchley action group. With local lawyers, business people, concerned residents and anyone with the passion to stand up to Barnet and say enough is enough! We’ve already drafted and served a legal challenge. We’ve drummed up press support (which is available in spades) and started getting the word out. The above ‘fun facts’ infographic does a great job of getting some of the more pithy soundbites across.

Please feel free to grab the Parking Facts image above and post it on your blog, print it out, post it to Councillor Coleman, post a comment below, shout on Facebook, do anything… just share it! As this great site exclaims, Brian Coleman has to go!

We have until the 14th February 2011 to object to these proposals so one easy way to show you’re support is to…

** SIGN THIS ONLINE PETITION **

Let’s fight this thing! Grrr! #cough# Grrr!

Ok, you you’ve been onto Ebay and got yourself a really cheap bottle of the fantastic Chanel Coco Mademoiselle perfume… only it doesn’t quite ring true. Maybe the smell isn’t quite what you were expecting, maybe the colour rang some alarm bells, or maybe the box seemed a bit clumsy. Either way, you’re online savvy and it couldn’t happen to your, right?
Well, it happened to me, so in my usual, slightly over-the-top way, I’ll explain how it happened, what I noticed and what I did next…

How it happened.
It was Christmas and the wife dropped the usual hints about her perfume running out. Straight onto Google. “100ml Chanel Coco Mademoiselle Eau de Parfum”… £150? You’re having a laugh! Ebay… £55. Cool. 97% positive feedback? Cool. Of course I look up why it wasn’t 100% (because I’m online savvy) and it turns out it was a broken bottle. Cool, it happens I guess. There were positive review for the Coco Mademoiselle perfume, so looks like the seller has a list of satisfied customers. I place my order, it arrives. Christmas morning… the doubts start. “I’m not sure about the colour”. Ok, perfume goes into quarantine and I start the Columbo routine.

Now, it’s still Christmas so I go online again with (less bravado this time) and order some more perfume from Boots for £85. Can’t go wrong with Boots. It arrives so now I have the chance to do some comparisons.

How to spot a fake:

So, first off. There are a few good guides on the eBay site. Here’s one for the bottle and the box. However, these seem to differ in a few points with my experiences. Maybe it’s the US version versus the UK, maybe it an updated product and the counterfeiters have had time to do some changes. Whatever it is, I’ll just give you what I noticed..

The basic packaging:

Not so easy so far! They both look pretty similar. However, there are some overall differences and clues. The fake packaging had printing and fonts that were thicker and less ‘refined’ than the real one. The quality was less and there were some subtle mistakes, such as the ingredients. But on the whole, let’s face it, you wouldn’t know. The bottle is much easier to find fault with but when the box arrives in the post, you’re not going to open it before you gift wrap it are you! This is partially what the counterfeiters rely on.

The front:

Just a few subtle differences in the font sizes and positioning. Without a real box to compare, you wouldn’t know.

The Back:

Now the back is where it starts to get interesting. There are some pretty big differences in positioning and thickness of the lettering (thicker on the fake). The ingredients were the most obvious, with a spelling mistake, different line-breaks and completely different ingredients at times.

Ingredients:

The Top:

The scanner didn’t really do justice to the gold (which was pretty similar on both) but did manage to show the lower quality of the logo and embossing on the fake.

The base:

Again, the base was where it got a bit more obvious, but only when you have one to compare to. Fonts were different and the embossed numbers (just visible on both) were in different locations. However, on other online guides, they were both embossed just above the 116.520. The real one I have was embossed just below the barcode. Also, for those more observant / more geeky among you, the barcode is actually different. Not sure if this is an internal Chanel thing though, so may be a red herring.

Opening the box:

Very subtle but the flaps inside the real box were sharper then the more rounded fake.

There is a subtle indent on either side of the real box lid flap too.

The colour and smell:

Now we’re getting somewhere. If you’ve had Coco Mademoiselle before, you’ll know it’s pink. The fake was yellow / brown in colour. That was the first real alarm bell. The second one was, as you’d expect, the smell. This was Eau de Parfum, i.e. the strong stuff and it just didn’t stack up. It smelt slightly of Coco Mademoiselle but didn’t last. Eau de Parfum is supposed to last for up to 8 hours. The fake lasted for about a minute or two. They’d obviously been clever to use diluted Coco Mademoiselle to confuse the less vigilant among us.

The thick bottle:

The biggest giveaway on the bottle itself is the thick base and (relatively) rougher construction. Again, without a real bottle to compare to, you wouldn’t know but it’s so obvious when you see it. Remember, Chanel is all about sophistication and delicacy, not chunky bottles and dubious printing.

The bottle base:

Managed to scan these on my flatbed scanner and the result clearly shows the differences. Besides the fact the fake one has a clumsy glass moulding mark compared to the refined line around the real one, the text is different. Other online guides suggest the fake can be picked off with a finger nail but this was printed on pretty solidly.

The Stopper:

Other online guides suggest these are obvious to spot as they are made of plastic. My fake seemed to be made of glass. However, there were a few things in common with other guides. The Coco Chanel double-C logo was not very centred on the fake. It was very slightly off on the real one though. The fake stopper was a little lop-sided however. Hard to see in the photo but the square top part was slightly angled compared to the bottom part. There was also a very subtle difference on the round plastic band above the white and gold ring. The real one had small dots around it (just visible).

Other guides also mention the top not fitting well or coming off when the bottle is held by the stopper alone. Mine seemed pretty secure and led to a few “maybe it’s not a fake?” moments. However, when the real one arrived, the real stopper went on with a definite ‘click’.

Spray nozzle:

There are two things to note on the spray nozzle, the colour and the shape of the part inside the bottle. Some fake bottle have black nozzle inserts (the small hole that the perfume squirts out of), my fake was white… but compared to the real one was actually a more of a transparent white. The part inside the bottle (the pump) was much larger and protruded into the bottle on the fake (as seen in the photo above). Curiously, the real bottle squirted about twice as much perfume as the fake.

Gold printing:

The gold overprinting was much cleaner and sharper on the real one. I’ve tried to get the light to show up the step in the printing where the gold is printed over the frosted logo. On the real one, the gold is exactly to the edge of the logo. In the fake, the gold covers the ridge on the outside of the logo, creating a step. Minor point but seemed in keeping with the theme of lower quality printing.

A quick test:

So, with all your new-found knowledge, what do you make of this… I’ve literally just done a search on Ebay and found this from a Polish seller…

Check out that super thick bottle… the stopper is twisted but the logo is in the middle… and the pump sticks down into the bottle a long way. Now you can see why most listings don’t show the actual bottle, or show a stock Chanel product shot. If in doubt, ask the seller to send a photo of the bottle, as you’ll get a much better idea from it than you would from the box.

I reported it, of course.

So what to do:

Firstly, I reported it to Ebay. Just log in, go to the Resolution Centre then select “I received an item that does not match the seller’s description”. Select the item from the list, click “Continue” and follow the instructions. The listing was taken down pretty quickly so nobody else could be duped.

I then sent a message to the seller saying it was a fake (but doing it nicely), asking them for their response. Nothing arrived. I repeated the process the next day mentioning that I need to start a claim but was aware that leaving “FAKE” on their feedback would be rather devastating for their Ebay history. No response.

I noted that one of the other buyers had already posted feedback on Ebay that they had a fake too. So I posted my feedback too. Hoping this could only help warn others. The other buyer contacted me too and we compared experiences. Again, hopefully solidarity and sharing of ‘evidence’ would only help our cases. Assuming the other satisfied buyers are real, I feel sorry for them and hope that Ebay contacts them now that the item has been uncovered as a fake. I hope so.

I had paid with Paypal so I then went over to Paypal and started a dispute claim. Like Ebay, go to the Resolution Centre and click “Dispute Transaction”. Then click “Item Dispute” (as the other one is about someone stealing your money). Then click the “Find Transaction ID” button and click the Transaction ID of the item in the popup window that arrives. Then just follow the process. You’re essentially saying that the product was “significantly different from the seller’s description”. Sounds vague but that also covers counterfeiting. Paypal will then freeze the seller’s money in relation to this item send the seller the details and give you both a channel to discuss the issue. If they agree to refund, great. If they don’t… then you can officially escalate it to a Paypal Dispute and Paypal will look at the evidence and decide one way or another. I’m still in this process but I can’t think how they can not repay the money to the buyer. I guess the process also covers people who received a green shirt from a seller and they will probably accept it with a bit of a discount. With my case involving fake goods, it becomes a legal issue.

Don’t return the item!

When the seller did reply, they said they would be happy to refund, just send the item back first. It made 100% sense to me NOT to do this as they would probably just sell it to someone else less vigilant. I contacted the government’s Consumer Direct site and asked them. They confirmed this would actually be illegal. Here was their response:

__________________________

Based on the information you have provided, the key legal points in response to your enquiry are as follows:

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, any goods sold need to be as described, which in your case would apply as the goods being counterfeit would effectively constitute a product misdescription. This obligation is binding on private sellers as well as traders. Under the above law, if you are deemed to be still within a reasonable timeframe from purchase, you would be able to reject the goods for a full refund. Such a timeframe is not specified in law, and would differ on a case by case basis, with the decision ultimately resting with a judge in a Small Claims Court.

Additional to the above, as the sale of counterfeit goods is also a criminal offense, the seller is not able to insist on the goods being returned due to the fact the goods may then be sold again, as you have correctly surmised. I would therefore send the seller a recorded delivery letter making reference to this and the above legal position. Go on to state that you are requiring a full refund, allowing them a reasonable timeframe to respond in (e.g, 14 days).

Trading Standards would also not get involved in dispute within a private sale. In this instance, it may be worth making a formal complaint to both Ebay and Paypal at their addresses below. However, you should be informed that this does not guarantee to get all your money back.

eBay
eBay U.K.
P.O. Box 700
Richmond Upon Thames
TW9 1YR

PAYPAL (UK) LIMITED
WHITTAKER HOUSE
WHITTAKER AVENUE
RICHMOND
SURREY
TW9 1EH

However, if the seller is in fact a trader, we can refer the details to their local Trading Standards department for their attention on the matter. Please provide us with your full address details and those of the seller if this is the case.
__________________________

I also contacted Chanel directly and asked if they wanted the bottle for reference or should I destroy it. They sent a very sweet note back saying to destroy it.

The seller still hasn’t contacted me to confirm whether they are happy to refund the money so I’ll have to wait until a reasonable period has passed before I can automatically escalate the dispute on Paypal. This seems to be 14 days. However, checking their Ebay details, I notice they come up as “No longer a registered user”. Uh oh…

In the interest of getting this post out there so it can hopefully be useful to somebody, I’ll update it with the next installment when it happens.

UPDATE:

Do the seller went quiet. I escallated the dispute with PayPal and they game me 14 days until they would decide. I received an email yesterday, here’s an excerpt:

——————————-
You can get a refund
——————————-

We’ve looked into case # and decided in your favour.
This means you can get your money back providing you:

1. Return the item to [name withheld] by 11/01/2011 in the same condition as received. Please use a trackable postal service that enables us to track online and verify delivery to the seller’s address.

__________________________

So this was Friday night on the 8th. The 11th was the next Tuesday. I had 3 working days to get it to the seller… but I was off to LA the following day. I thought this timeframe was a little unreasonable, however, as you may have read above, I was NOT going to send the item back to the seller under any circumstances.

I phoned PayPal, struggled through their horrendous automated system and 10 minutes of mad ‘Flight of the bumble bee’ waiting music (not a clever way to relax customers). The customer services person explained that I had to send it back… I disagreed. They held firm. I explained a bit more. They then seemed to get it and explained that ‘the system’ puts fakes in the same category as ‘not as described’ and that she would amend the case. Now I simply needed to get proof it was fake and send confirmation withing 10 days. I mentioned I would be in LA from tomorrow morning and I wouldn’t be back in time, so could I have an extension to the time.

The conversation went something like this:

Me: Given your system has already made a bit of a wrong decision, and now we’re on the right track after being sensible over the phone, can I also ask for a little longer to respond.

PayPal: Sorry, the terms state 10 days.

Me: So, let me get this right. If I don’t send it back in 10 days, you will give my money to a known counterfeiter?

PayPal: Yes

Me: Ok, Hmmm. So you’re happy to use your terms and conditions to guaranteed a known counterfeiter receives fake goods?

PayPal: Sorry. That’s what the terms ans conditions are for.

Me: Wow. So did you read the blog I wrote, with all the evidence? And Ebay have deactivated the seller’s account for selling fake items.

PayPal: No.

Me: Ok. Hmmm. Could you possibly just read that? I’ll hold.

PayPay: [holding music]

PayPal: Ok, I see what you mean. Ok. In that case, we’ll send you a legal document to sign. Just send it back stating that you’ve destroyed the goods and we’ll release your money. You have 3 days.

Me: Ok, thank you for getting there eventually. Thank you for your time.

So here’s what I did…

And I hope this post has been useful.

Last Saturday saw a fairly large dump of snow in London. Like many, I had neglected my dad duties and hadn’t got hold of a sledge. Let’s face it, it’s showed twice in 15 years (or something like that) so it’s maybe not considered one of life’s essentials. However, having been caught out and the shops seemingly running dry, I set about making one.

So, with a few tools, a spare estate agent sign and 6 minutes of bodging we had ourselves one of the best sledges I’ve ever used.

Now I should explain why it’s so good, and also explain what it isn’t so good at. It’s not got rails, so isn’t any good for whizzing down hills as it’ll spin like mad. What it is good at is dragging around flat areas (as it glides easily), stunts, jumps, going sideways and it’s absolutely awesome at donuts. You can even drag your kids over piles of logs and other people’s snowmen! Loads of kids in Cherry Tree Park asked where we got ours from, offering their swanky ‘shop bought’ sledges at us and muttering “these are rubbish”.

So thought I’d share how I make them.

You’ll need:

• Estate agents sign. We had one left over from a school fair advert. Don’t steal one!
• Plank of wood or similar.
• Drill
• Large drill bit (8-10mm) and a small drill bit (4mm)
• Strong electrical cable or rope
• Cable cutters or something to cut the rope
• Few wood screws
• A wood saw
• Vice or something to help you drill the wood.

Time needed: 5-10 minutes

Step 1:

Get all your stuff together! Remove the estate agent sign from the wooden pole (obviously) and split it into two pieces (front and back… again, obviously). You’ll get two sledges from one sign.

Step 2:

Cut 2 pieces of wood to a length that would fit across the width of the estate agents sign. Mine are about 40cm. Then drill two large holes (10mm drill) in ONE OF THE PLANKS ONLY. Like so. Not too close to the ends though.

Step 3:

Then use the small drill (4mm) to make some more holes for the screws. Again, ONLY IN ONE OF THE PLANKS. I made 5 holes. If your piece of wood is not as wide, just drill 3 holes along it’s length.

Step 4:

Cut a piece of rope or strong electrical cable about 50-60cm long and thread one end through the large hole and tie a knot in it. Doesn’t have to be a particularly good one.

Step 5:

Do the same with the other end. Should look something like this. This will be the bit your kids hold onto when they’re on the sledge.

Step 6:

Now do the same with a much longer piece, about 2.5m-3m long. This is what you’ll be pulling it with, so don’t make it too short. Tie the same knots in the ends.

Step 7:

Now for that other bit of wood. Get your estate agent sign and lie it flat. Put the plain, undrilled piece of wood at the bottom, about 3cm (1 inch) from the end. Put the drilled and threaded plank on top and line it up with the bottom plank.

Pull the knots through a bit (a few cm) and make them poke out from under the wood. In this photo, they are visible behind the plank.

Step 8:

Now screw the top plank to the bottom one through the small holes. Make sure the screws are just long enough to secure the bottom plank but not long enough to poke all the way out of the bottom. Heaven knows the trouble you’ll be in if your kids come home with scratches from protruding screws!

Step 9:

Should look something like this.

Step 10:

And now you have your new, zero-emission, 100% free, totally recycled stunt sledge.

Riding tips:

Keep the front up: Seeing as there’s a plank of wood under the sledge, you need to keep the front slightly raised. Your kids can do this by pulling their mini-rope handle or you can do it as you pull them. Either way, if they are too far forwards and lean on the wood, you’ll find the going a bit tough!

The Donut: The best stunt on these sledges so far is the donut. Just get up a bit of speed on some flat snow, then stop, pull the sledge past you then just swing it around in a circle. You hardly have to work at it but your kids will be hurtling around sideways. They’ll have to lean into it and slightly raise the leading edge to stop them digging-in and getting dumped on their bums but they’ll learn pretty fast. For those of you into motorbikes and cornering, you’ll know the score. Advanced / fit parents my want to attempt the figure-of-eight extension to the donut. Tests your kid’s direction changing skills.

The Stump Jumper: There are a few logs from felled trees in the woods. These sledges will go over them pretty well too. Just hop over the log, pull the front of the sledge up and just drag your (hopefully grinning) child over. And repeat.

The Step Master: Just head for a few shallow steps or a kerb and well, go down/up it! Obviously, one or two is fine… 30 steps from the top of the local shopping centre isn’t fine.

DISCLAIMER: Use your head. This is a bit of fun. If you hurt yourself or anyone else, it’s your own fault. I’m not responsible for people with a lack of basic common sense. And don’t steal the estate agents sign!

So we’re all up for Momevber at Digital Outlook and now were a few days in, the stubble is starting to be shaped and coiffured towards its final, resplendent form. Last year I went all-in and did the Gringo. This year, I’m thinking the Tron Recognizer?

Either way, if you don’t know about Movember, sort it out! Its primary goal is to raise money and awareness for prostate cancer. There are no 10k runs or sitting in a bath of beans, you just have to grow a ‘tash for a month.

If you’re feeling generous, please head over to my donation page and put in a few quid / bucks / yen / beans. Whatever you can spare will be gratefully received.

I had to quickly knock up a quick leaflet for a street party and couldn’t find a cartoon firework that fitted the design. I ended up doing a quick hack in Photoshop so thought I’d post it. It’s not the best and literally took 5 minutes but if it helps, great! Feel free to download it and use it in your own designs.

DOWNLOAD the zipped Photoshop file.

I wondered how long it would take for someone to start charging for those rubber bands postal workers litter our streets with! Welcome to Silly Bandz.

Hadn’t heard of them until today but Silly Bandz have taken the US by storm. Essentially, just simple outlines made of thin rubber that you can stretch and wear as a wristband or bracelet. It’s not often I know about this kind of thing before my 9 year old daughter so I’m curious to know when it emerges on her radar. Interestingly, my 7 year old son’s “girlfriends’ have them apparently.

I give it 2 months until all the cool kids in the office have them draped over their Hoxton fixie bike baskets.