Anyhoo (yes "anyway" was already taken).

Especially for Stuttgarter Number 1: Not Via Bank.

[For those of you who have no idea what this is in reference to, see this photograph].

Edit at 10 pm:

Um, er...

Ignore the above. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what happened. I think someone was talking to me about Charing Cross, and somewhere my brain got a little bit mixed up (well it is sort of similar to the answer and fairly near). But as clues for Charing Cross go...

Maybe I ought to swap the picture of one of Charing Cross (which suddenly has ceased to be Charing X and become Charing + on Tube messages. Maybe X is too negative, and + is thought to be more positive), so I can pretend that is what it was all along.

Perhaps I ought to give up (but I've still got so many hints to go, such as "the wheels on the buskers go round and round", references to Nine Elms and horticultural nuns with a good set of lungs).

Oh hang on, I said it was especially for IAF, so that means I can pretend I was deliberately misleading him in retaliation for his impatience.

And did I ever mention the annual Christmas puzzles sent out with cards (whatever happened to that tradition?), including the infamous crossword in which I managed to think there was such a word as "intresting"? Although someone did get it.

Maybe I oughtn't try to set things for people to solve.

Anyhoo,

PS. Did you know Sainsbury's use supermacro for photographing their products. The reduced lemon meringue pie was reduced in more ways than I expected, as the image shows part of it about 8 times the normal size. If other people have to put magnification, scale or indication of scale* in their images, then why don't supermarkets?

* Such as those yardsticks of international comparison: the 5 cent piece and 50 pence coin (which of course got shrunk). And that reminds me: shops who display merchandise with the US price sticker on it, and then add one for sterling. The Pier (don't ask, I didn't find what I was looking for anyway) had glasses labelled as $2 each. The UK price label, which apparently showed the new, reduced price, said £2.50*. Anyone else think the shop might need the whole foreign exchange system explained to them? Because using their logic the glasses would be 1.50 if I bought them in Euros (actually, it'd be €2.15 or something like that wouldn't it?).

* And they can't blame transport costs, as the usual rule of thumb for buying US products direct from the US is to take the value in US dollars and swap the $ with a £.

PPS. Radio 1's playing Nirvana's 1992 Reading Festival set. It's odd; they're more mellow live. I know they're be scandalised reactions from some people because it took me this long to discover that, but I was only just twelve when this was recorded (which has the added advantage of making me feel very young. That is, until I work out how old a certain reader is. Bloody child of the [not quite a] hurricane (or thereabouts)).