Loz

The problem is, if Trump is impeached, you get Pence, who is equally unhinged but less visibly so.

clareybrad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Administrator, > I have just been on igmur site as having problems posting photos from iPad or iPhone as saying image > too big. There are photos and posts with the words bitch and dick on the site.... Do we really have > to use this kind of site in order to access the east dulwich forum? Please advise thank you, Clare I'm not admin, but you can avoid using third-party sites (others are available) if you shrink your images to an appropriate file size. PS If you do want to avoid such terms, I suggest you never go near facebook, Twitter, Google and, since your post, the East Dulwich Forum.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Go with "1111"s and "15"s over your shirt but it > maybe a bit geeky. That took me far too long to get.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would the passwords be miraculously saved in their > relevant places after a factory reset, which is > what the effing stupid woman did instead of a > system restore? Not as such, but they both have hotkeys that automatically pass the login and password to the browser (or whatever). Besides, the browser password save system is notoriously insecure - you shouldn't use it for any passwords for important/financial stuff.

How about a GoPro? Decent quality and very portable (obviously) and, with a stick, great for selfies.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At least I keep clues to all my many passwords on a spreadsheet, > GRRRRRRRRR. Being Captain Hindsight here Sue, but try keeping password in a password manager. I use Keepass and hold the encrypted file on my OneDrive/GoogleDrive. But there is also Lastpass, which is completely cloud based (so all your passwords are held on their servers). At least when the worst happens with your computer, your passwords are safe.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > [..] Loz and various other Daily Mail style commenters think [...] Are you actually calling me a 'Daily Mail style commenter'?? Really? What an ignorant, first-class a******* you are. Take your half-baked, half-witted opinions and shove them where the sun don't shine, you tosser. You obviously know sod-all about me.

As with anything, different shops will have different margins on different products - after all, you need to take business costs such as rent into account. But there are a few basic rules that most follow. First, it depends a little where you source your wines. From most distributors you buy them 'duty paid' but, if not, you have to add ?2.16 per 750ml bottle. After that, most usually work on about a 30-40% margin. But then you have to add VAT as well. So, if you work at, say, a 35% margin, then a bottle of wine you buy from the wholesaler at ?3.50 (duty paid, so ?1.34 before duty) will be ?5.38 after margin and ?6.46 after VAT. So, of your ?6.46 bottle of wine, ?3.24 is tax! Also, when looking online, beware the words "in bond" as that will mean either no VAT has been applied and possibly no duty as well. But those will need to be paid before you get you hands on them. So, a wine that would be ?6.46 on the shop shelf could be advertised as "?3.00 in bond, duty not paid". It's not a scam - it's the way the wholesale and investment side of industry runs. For older bottles, then market price is more of an indicator.

.

Indy admits their original report was a load of rubbish. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/animal-sentience-brexit-vote-caroline-lucas-michael-gove-truth-fact-argument-a8072071.html "The Independent was among publishers that reported the story in that way. But it became clear that this claim was not right, even though it had been interpreted by some campaigners in that way." Though I'm still not sure what it was doing in the bill in the first place.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes , me too, but you can always rely on > rendelharris to do the libtard thing... Ugh, please don't use that Americanism. 'Liberal' and 'left-wing' are very different (though not completely mutually exclusive)

treehugger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the name is a poor choice. If you pronounce it properly with a French accent, you > sound a bit poncy; if you say it without much of a french accent it sounds odd "terrwa"; if you > decide you just want to say it, you come out with "terrors" or "terriors". Are people who eat there terroirists?

El Presidente Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have actually reached the point where in the > eyes of some, accurately describing an individuals > appearance is racist. To be fair, a few years ago on here it was pretty immediate. At least this one took over a week before it descended into that sort of crap.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > Interesting that you don't object to the > > identifying of the person as male. Rather sexist > > of you. > > There has to be some form of identifying noun and > the baseline ones are girl/boy/woman/man. Really? They could have used 'person', which is the real baseline. But that is irrelevant to my point. I just found it interesting that ollieloudon saw one piece of supposed discrimination in the OP's description, but not the other. I thought it said a lot about ollieloudon specifically and what some sections of society see as 'acceptable' discrimination in general.

ollieloudon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not to sure why 'black boy' was needed in the title.Clearly identifying the criminal is not the > purpose of this thread as no further was given. I beleive that if it was a white boy you wouldnt > have included it. I feel there is racist tone in this thread. Interesting that you don't object to the identifying of the person as male. Rather sexist of you.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > That's not what the bill does - it just defines the mechanism they will use. If you think > > otherwise, my challenge would be name one other EU law that is specifically named in the bill. > > The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000. Job done. Well, I sort of concede that, since I said 'named' - though I would also point out that is a Charter, not a law. But I think you also understand what I am saying - this is not a bill that seeks to port the laws, just define the mechanism. Singling out particular laws has no place here. > On the particular animal rights issue, the government have indicated that they intend to use > the powers conferred by the act to remove the animal sentience clause from UK law. The > amendment attempts to stop this. Where else would you suggest that MPs could introduce a block to > the government doing this? Well, that is precisely why it should NOT be done here. The issue you point out is a failing of the entire process - in that it circumvents parliament. Instead of the Greens trying to point score on their pet issue (pun intended), maybe it would be better to try and fix the huge, massive, gigantic procedural problem with the bill itself?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > No, the government are porting across the parts of > EU law they wish to keep as part of our law, > dropping parts they don't want; That's not what the bill does - it just defines the mechanism they will use. If you think otherwise, my challenge would be name one other EU law that is specifically named in the bill. > Amendment clauses are anything but mere political point scoring, they are what will shape the entire > structure of UK society and institutions once we leave the EU. They can be and, indeed, usually are. I agree they are an important part of the parliamentary process. But they can also be pure point scoring.

Beaujolais Nouveau should be a great case study in how to severely damage a brand. Normal Beaujolais is great stuff - better value than burgundy at the same price level. But people turn their nose up at it because they think all Beaujolais is like nouveau.

My understanding is that the EU Withdrawal bill is just to provide a mechanism to port EU legislation to UK Law - it doesn't list any particular law/s that will or won't go through. So, apart from an exercise in political point scoring, I'm not sure why the amendment was tabled.

Are places still doing Beaujolais Nouveau? How very 80's. Do they serve it with a prawn cocktail with Wham! playing loudly in the background?

Well that went well...

If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

Bob Buzzard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apparently Sadiq Khan is going to apply forv'DOC' status for London, so then we'll still sort of be > in thecEUnafter Brexit as we will have protected status on the same lines as Parmesan or Roquefort > has. This makes no sense - was it supposed to be a joke? DOC is not an EU term as such (the EU uses PDO and PGI) and is only available for certain goods from a region, not the region itself.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I set up my current workplace pension we used a method of salary sacrifice (everyone used it and > maybe still does)to get more money into the pension. A company I used to work for did that - it was, I believe, both sanctioned and encouraged by HMRC.

Although I am usually a fan, the John Lewis ad this year can be safely filed under "meh...".