silverfox

"...2. Re insurance: cyclists are more likely to be injured yet less likely to be at fault in road traffic accidents..." Where is the factual evidence for this? Also binary_star, have you ever undertaken and passed a cycling proficiency test? (honest answer please).

The Supreme Court will examine whether troops in war zones are covered by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9668783/Court-to-consider-whether-soldiers-have-right-to-life.html Nobody in their right mind would wish for war. But, if war does break out, are we really going to see a paintball version?

Fair points Jeremy. A cursory look at the For Sale section on this forum shows it is possible to buy a bog standard bike or a state of the art carbon fibre, nano tube model worth several hundred pounds. People can buy such bikes and immediately hit the roads without any training/cycling proficiency instruction. It should be mandatory that cyclists are taxed (say, ?20 a year) and insured (after successfully passing a cycling proficiency course) before they can cycle on the road.

Nonsense Maxxi. Have you ever driven a car?

Good question. Perhaps I was charged extra for this excruciating performance

What worries me is the presumption it is always the driver's fault when any half-wit can buy a bike and take to the road with no cycling proficiency test or insurance. In any car/bike accident the question should be asked of the cyclist - "have you got insurance?" personally I think The Times newspaper has made an ass of itself with it's cycling campaign.

I think you'll find lots of people with children are embarrassed by other parents. I once had the misfortune to fly back from Chicago to London with what I will call a child with a baby onboard. For six or so miserable hours she insisted on walking up and down the aisle with her breast hanging out trying to force a jet-leggemd, exhausted, child to suckle her when the child was obviously fast asleep. Attention seeking or what?

He should have resigned. It took him just over three minutes to find the list of names online and, as a so called professional, it appears he didn't actually do any further research into these allegations/rumours. Question, why pay him more than ?15,000 a year on such evidence? A trainee would't have done any worse.

Thank you for your very revealing story Vicky. It was not my intention to elicit private matters. You have made a huge contribution to the better understanding of this issue. I wish you and Emma the very best.

Thanks Saffron, I bow to superior knowledge on that point. I suppose hormonal/chemical imbalances do shape us to differing degrees. DJKQ, "...Are you really thinking, that once a person goes through a gender transition, they are no longer in a heterosexual marriage? I suspect that is where you will probably end up with your argument..." I hadn't really thought about it that way. My point on deceit was an example where one party to the marriage enters into the union on false pretences. I suppose it depends on what you mean by a heterosexual marriage. If it can be defined as a man and a woman sharing their lives together and part of this is enjoying sexual relations together, then if one party changes so that he/she effectively starts living a separate life and/or no longer offers the emotional support and sexual comfort then the other person could well feel that the new situation is not what they signed up for and feel cheated. Such a state of affairs can however apply in any relationship, including gay marriages where one partner decides they are no longer gay.

Hi Vickki (Vicky?). Unlike some of the posts above I will not do you the disservice of patronising you by figuratively patting you on the head in a condescending manner. You have posted in the Drawing Room to raise this issue which deserves a good airing. So I would like to question the following: "...I was incorrectly labeled male at birth because the doctor simply didn't realise at the time what I was and so my family raised me as male and I was led to believe that I was a male. To cut a long story short I was eventually recognised as the female I actually am and treatment began to correct my physical anomalies..." I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying you were born physically deformed because you were a female (xx chromosomes) but had male attributes, most noticeably a penis which led doctors to mistakenly assume you were male? Or, more probably, are you saying you were born a female trapped in a male body - ie, rather than physical deformity the issue here is a psychological one. In your initial post you stated: "...Emma and I married in 2005 but a few years after, I uncovered the truth of myself, that I was indeed transsexual..." I concluded from this that your eureka moment came to you late in life and three years into your marriage. However your later posts imply ("...to cut a long story short...") you have struggled with your identity and nature for many years. If this is the case, then did Emma and yourself discuss your feelings before you married so that she entered into the marriage aware of the conflicts you were dealing with and so could not be said to have been deceived as to whom she was marrying? If the latter is the case then you obviously stand a better chance of succeeding with your marriage given the absence of deceit that existed in the article I referred you to.

I don't see why you consider my answer to the OP's question spiteful Jeremy. I simply gave my opinion - an opinion held, I suspect, by the majority of people in this country. The OP is happy to broadcast to the world his/her current condition - "...I uncovered the truth of myself, that I was indeed transsexual..." and as he/she states "... Not many marriages survive such..." changes. I happen to think such a profound change to the dynamic of a marriage places an insurmountable strain on the majority of such relationships.

To answer your question - no it can't work and nor will it work. Interesting article in yesterday's Guardian - My husband's sex change http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/02/my-husbands-sex-change?INTCMP=SRCH "...Looking back, I can say Tom was a wonderful husband, father, friend. Or I can say Tom was a fabrication. A fake, who didn?t want to be with me..."

Interesting addition to Comport, the first word on this thread. The use of Comport as a noun, which I haven't come across in the dictionaries: Comport (noun) A large, covered glass bowl on a stem, which can be used as a serving piece for compotes Cited by Replacements, Ltd. Dean's Corner "Most tableware glossaries define ?compote? as a large, covered glass bowl on a stem, which can be used as a serving piece. These items were commonly found on tables from the mid-1800s until well into the 20th century. However, at a conference several years ago, we learned from glassware expert Frank Fenton that all compotes are actually comports! Fenton explained that ?compote? was a type of food, and that comports were the pieces used to serve this tasty dish. He then showed us a number of period catalog illustrations http://www.replacements.com/thismonth/images/deans_corner_comport_x.jpg indeed, the glass objects were listed as comports in every instance. http://www.replacements.com/thismonth/archive/v1314n.htm?s1=let&652& See also LuLu Too's mention of Comportment above com?port?ment noun - personal bearing or conduct; demeanor; behaviour.

"...Any ideas how to stop people from driving down the middle of the local roads so they can try and straddle the multiple speed cushions that are around? ..." Simple - get rid of the speed bumps

Ted, why do you feel you need access to such correspondence? How would such knowledge improve your life?

Interesting - but ... Why should the taxpayer give you up to ?1,000 to plant bulbs which will flower in spring and then die? At least the council's 'functional low maintenance bushes' may last throughout the year. Why not put your hand into your pocket and spend some of your own money to test your idea? If it works come back to us in a year or so.

I thought petulant Clegg was going to object to these boundary proposals

Sorry, have I missed the point? How much EU money was spent to bail out RBS?

Help me out here folks because I see this is big news on the BBC etc but I can't understand why. 1. My understanding was it was the British taxpayer that bailed out RBS. I don't remember any EU money or Troika involvement. So, question 1 - what the hell does the EU have to do with it (telling RBS to sell off branches). 2. Santander was the suitor. I've read the merging of IT systems was too prohibitive/the delay unacceptable. So, question 2 - What's the real story here? Santander is a Spanish bank. Spain hasn't got a pot to piss in. 2.

Found the whole thing a bit superficial (Marx in one hour?). Interesting nonetheless as a sound-bite guide to economics (not necessarily Stephanie's fault).

Posted by El Pibe Today, 03:14PM "...Plenoasty is a modern day scourge, a bit of discipline in writing these days would be most welcome..." The word you need is pleonasm - see Learned a new word today in the Drawing Room

PLEONASM ple?o?nasm noun Definition of PLEONASM 1: the use of more words than those necessary to denote mere sense (as in the man he said): redundancy 2: an instance or example of pleonasm ? ple?o?nas?tic adjective ? ple?o?nas?ti?cal?ly adverb Origin of PLEONASM Late Latin pleonasmus, from Greek pleonasmos, from pleonazein to be excessive, from pleiōn, pleōn more First Known Use: 1610 Cited by RosieH today on the Unnecessary Words thread

From whence

No less, it's the first pressing I think