As I said, I was in Jacobs Oxford Street, (opposite Jessops) Friday last, the 12th and it's on offer there for £299, clearly marked. If you read my first post on the subject, you'll see that they are up to something as they tried to get me to pay £499.
But the offer is there in the shop, just not on the computer it seems. I guess you'd have to go in and get it - you're in Esher, I see, so it's only a short trip!

I've just eBayed my GX-10 - it went for £190.

Isn't it amazing how each of us as individuals is the only one that isn't biased?
If you're happy with your camera who cares what someone else thinks?
If that review had been heavily for the Pentax, would anyone have complained about biased reports? No, of course not. Apart from people who don't have Pentaxes, of course.
A friend of mine, an ex motoring correspondent observed that when people asks him 'what is the best car?', that's not what they mean. What they mean is, 'tell me why my car is the best'

I was in Jacobs Oxford Street again yesterday - they still have the GX-20 0n display at £299 body, £348 (or very near, I don't totally recall) with standard kit lens.

I'm glad some people have been able to get this offer. As I said in my original post, I'd have paid £499 instead of £299 unless I chanced on seeing the 'special offer' notice behind the till.
Imagine paying and then spotting the notice.

I think I'd have made a big fuss, actually.

Interesting that the salesman took the notice down and said it was now finished when I asked after it. Since then, people here have bought on the offer long after me. Funny sort of 'finished!'

I went into Jacobs in Oxford Street yesterday to scout out Samsung/ Pentax Nikon or Canon in various shops.
Spoke to sales guy who showed me a GX-20. Looked OK, price £499 body only he told me from the computer. Sounds reasonable, I said, I'll take it. When I got to the till, I saw a sign in the back display cabinet 'Special Deal, Samsung GX-20 + kit lens 18-55 £349'. So I asked about this deal. Salesmen says he didn't know about it, it's now finished and takes the notice down from the cabinet.
I then notice a deal on the GX-20 body - £299. He takes the notice for this down too. 'I'll take a raincheck on that' I say, seeing which way prices are going. He walks away up the counter quickly and starts to serve someone else.
Just out of interest, I go up to another assistant, a young woman. 'How much is a GX-20 body?', I ask. 'Special offer, £299', she replies.
I buy it....
Two points I'd make here. First, if I hadn't chanced to see the display cab notice, I'd have paid £200 more for the body - so caveat emptor!
Second, that's a hell of a good price! The next best was Calumet in Wardour Street at £479.99 but no stock.

Thansk for your patience with me, gents. I'm going to research the value of my stuff and decide what to do.
I feel a loss of money coming on!

anvh, to answer your comment, I'm so p***** off with my gear that I don't even want to put the lens on the camera again. I can tell you that at f8 it's a different lens. But so is the kit....There aren't many lenses that are no good at f8.
I've paid out over £500 for a lens I can't focus and whose only advantage is a lack of distortion which I can correct on the kit lens in Photoshop anyway - if not quite as well.

I do feel cheated - I spend £1000 on lenses which I cannot just fit on a camera body and use to their capability without being a technical expert.
It's true that I'm not buying to the same standard as when they were tax allowable for me but having come back in to photography after a few years, I expected it to be less of a technical minefield rather than more, most technology having become consumerised.
I can understand autofocus being dodgy - it's not necessary anyway, just a convenience and I mostly don't use it. It's the fact that I'm going to get fuzzy pix even if I focus manually that bugs me. If the focus was always out by a certain amount I could learn to compensate but the fact that it's different for each lens is a real mess (to me).
If I had known I woudn't have bought the 'fuzzy' 15mm or chanced to luck with the other DAs, I'd have stuck with the 'sharper' kit lens since I can't have both with accurate focus. There was no information about that that I saw when I bought and now the only recourse if I want full peformance from all my lenses is to spend out yet more on a body that's regarded as 'better' merely it does what it's supposed to. How many people buying this stuff know that when they buy, I wonder?
That's marketing, I guess.

Well, I thank everyone here for their help. I have worked for some of the greatest mags and newspapers in the world, was Paul McCartney's photog for two years and never had focus issues. What kind of living would I have made with out of focus pictures at this level?
I now find that I have a camera for which I can pay over £500 for a lens which I can never be sure of focussing accurately - or if I can focus this one accurately I cannot be sure of the others. If what I see on the screen does not correlate with what I find in my picture, I question the purpose of an slr.
I'll ignore the fatuous remark about Leicas having a pentaprism. I have my old M2 on my office desk - I see that it does not have one. It does focus accurately, though, with both the 35mm f2 and 90mm Summicrons.
I guess I'll change systems, I'd like a system where I could rely on the integrity of the maker, if there is one, of course. Even Leica is just a rebadged Panasonic now.

So this focus adjustment is necessary with manual focussing as well?
I simply find it hard to believe that if I see a sharp image on screen (with all my lenses) and they all show a sharp image when tested against the ruler, that somewhere there is a focussing problem.
I must say that after a lifetime as a professional photographer and never experiencing any (sober) focussing problems with any cameras and with lenses ranging from fisheye through 400 f2.8, rangefinder and all, a digital cameras is produced that cannot translate a sharp image on screen into a sharp one on the screen.
Who would let a camera out with such poor quality control? What use is a sharp lens to the average amateur as I am now, if you cannot buy it and have it work from the box?
This is an appalling step backwards. Leica could produce a camera with reliable focussing, line up the rangefinder and go, 70 years ago.
If I post a series of pix from my lenses of the ruler, say, could someone help me evaluate them?