silverfox

Where has Bigbadwolf's post about 'The best way to murder someone' gone? Is it in the process of being moved to The Drawing Room?

Seems a bit too labour intensive to me - what with peeling all those spuds etc and what if the frazzled victim had McCain oven bake chips in the freezer? Nah, bigbadwolf, sounds like 'pub talk' to me after a good session in the Capitol Far better to treat them to a slap up meal at Heston Blumenthal's The Fat Duck with oysters as a starter.

There is a problem with questions like this SteveT and the problem is people are not prepared to address the serious implications of what is being asked. The population question is without doubt an easy target - with the argument that too many people means too much pressure on (limited) resources. 1. I don't agree England is an over-populated country. By what measurement etc? 2. China is now asking some of it's population to have more than one child. It's limited to booming cities such as Shanghai etc at the moment but the reason is China's one child per family policy is now starting to backfire with too few young people bearing the burden of maintaining an older population who are living longer. The western world is also waking up to this problem (increase the age before you get your pension, too many old people putting a burden on the NHS and too few young people generating the taxes to pay for it etc) If you are suggesting 'over-population' is a bad thing (whatever over-population means) then consider the following and some possible solutions: Have a look at Global Footprint Network (globalfootprintnetwork.org) among others, a serious scientific attempt to establish and monitor our impact on the environment (carbon footprint). Not only does the organisation say that it rejects suggestions that reducing the size of the Earth's human population would help the environment, claiming this focus is a critical distraction from tackling over-consumption in wealthy countries but it also points out that one person in the US will, by 4am on the morning of 2 January, already have been responsible for emitting as much carbon as someone living in Tanzania would generate in an entire year. It says that a UK citizen would reach the same position by 7pm on 4 January. There is a simplistic quiz for all to take part in, with a serious scientific purpose behind it, that told me that if everyone in the world had my life-style (admittedly an American bias) we would need 4.6 earths to sustain such lifestyles. Questions asked (among others) were; do you live in a house/apartment, does it have water/number of bathrooms, do you drive a car/take public transport, how much meat do you eat a week? etc So before we start dictating to people how many children they should or should not have (and children are the future) let's see what else we can do. a) Why not ban all pets - dogs, cats, guinea pigs, budgies, goldfish etc, put them all to sleep. All these parasites need feeding and contribute nothing to mankind. By all means keep beasts of burden. b) Bring in compulsory euthanasia for everyone over 65. Thus no pension burden for old wrinklies who contribute little to society and burden our health facilities and more room for people to have more children that may make more of a contribution to society. c) Bring back a form of rationing cards so no one person can eat more than one pound (500g) of meat a week, can use no more than 50 gallons of water a week for drinking, washing, bathing etc Okay, we can get as silly as we like but I object to the perennial bleat of 'over-population' which often means no more than 'I and people like me are in danger of losing our way of life if more people have children who also want a way of life like mine'

What is your question here Declan? My view is simple - university is about studying something you enjoy, meeting people from different walks of life with different views who you wouldn't normally meet within your immediate circle and generally growing up and maturing, learning about the value of money, without your parents or formative peers making or framing your decisions. I find it sad that it is commonly accepted today that you should study something so that you can get a job at the end of it. Take the opportunity to study what you want and then go on to train to do whatever you decide.

No

John Redwood and Sir Stuart Rose. There's something about their 'nose in the air' attitude that really irks me when I see them on telly.

I see today's Times has clarified the matter slightly and the charges will not apply to passengers travelling with infants(but presumably will if travelling with children 12 years old and above).

From tonight's evening standard: "A family of four faces paying up to ?160 extra to fly on holiday with British Airways this half-term after the airline announced it will charge customers to guarantee they can sit together. ...Those who want to make sure they sit in a group or have a preference for aisle, window or exit seats will be affected... Choosing a seat will cost ?10 per person on a one-way economy flight within Europe, rising to ?20 for long-haul economy and premium economy flights and European business flights. That means every economy passenger will have to pay ?40 for a specific seat to and from any destination outside Europe. Securing an exit row seat with extra leg room costs ?50. Long-haul business travellers without enough frequent-flier miles to have a gold or silver club card will need to pay ?60 per one-way flight. First-class passengers are unaffected. BA today insisted most families who booked trips on one credit card would be seated together without having to pay extra. But a spokeswoman admitted that this would be harder to guarantee in peak season when flights are fully booked. She said: ?Not all the seats on a flight will be opened up to pre-booking. We will continue our policy of offering free seat allocation for families from three days prior to travel. We will also still reserve some seating until the last 24 hours, when any passenger can then pick their seat for free.? But she acknowledged that there may not be enough seats in the free three-day slot to cover every family in peak season. ?To guarantee sitting together during busy periods, people will have the option of paying extra,? she said.

True Moos, but I know three examples where women who were on maternity leave at the company I work for were replaced before they came back and were simply paid off (probably paid more money than they'd have won through a lengthy legal process and two of them were happy about it post-motherhood). Point is, while hubby's off for six months many things can change, a restructure, others promoted etc, and he may be surplus to requirements. Managing people out is the order coming from the top these days.

Real ale should be served in a tankard or those old fashioned glasses with handles (no logos!)

It may be a bit easier to do if the dads work in the public sector (I'm not sure) but surely from an employer's point of view if a dad can take six months off his job the question is is he really required in the first place? - especially in the current climate.

I've only seen short articles about this but surely it should be compulsory that a mother and child (or father and child if no mother present) should sit together on a flight without being charged for the privilege or leaving seating to a 24-hour before travel lottery? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8274200.stm

Tried brewing my own once with one of those kits from Boots that promises 15 gallons for the price of a pint in Liquorice. Dutifully followed instructions and placed the dozen or so bottles in the airing cupboard to ferment. Woken in the middle of the night to the sound of exploding bottles and shards of glass as big as a saracen's sword embedded in the cupboard door. Complete waste of time

Hear Hear

You lot don't know what real lager is. If you'd worked for six months without a break on a sheep farm in the Australian outback 1,000 miles west of Wagga Wagga like I haven't you'd drink XXXX out of a dingo's jock-strap and be damn glad of it!

I know what you mean Mick Mac. I prefer my lager served in litre Stein glasses by buxom fraulein wearing lederhosen. Can't say it improves the taste of the beer but the 'jugs' makes me feel better.

HonaloochieB wrote: "... The draught is only any good in the big old Peroni glass, in any other it's just lager-lager-lager..." What's the glass got to do with it? It's only an advertising device. If the drink was any good surely it would taste the same if you drank it out of a bucket?

...'drunk on swine flu gel' "...In March, Royal Bournemouth Hospital said it was one of many hospitals removing alcohol-based hand cleaning gel from reception areas in a bid to stop visitors drinking it..." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8272799.stm

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is old team. > Not sure of the first one yet Olive Oyl?

I'm afraid after many years as a loyal reader it was one of several subscriptions I cancelled in a credit-crunch belt-tightening drive. I now find I'm also getting out of the habit of reading it regularly but my wife's happy as she was fed up with me spending too much time in my 'study' (aka the toilet).

gyve As in "The Chair will gyve us if we don't behave" gyve [ j?v ] noun (plural gyves) Definition: leg shackle: a shackle or fetter, usually for the leg ( usually used in the plural ) transitive verb (past and past participle gyved, present participle gyv?ing, 3rd person present singular gyves) Definition: shackle: to shackle or fetter somebody, especially by the leg

bigbadwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whenever you think you've finished the washing up, > you'll always discover a bloody teaspoon under the > washing up bowl when you empty it!! My Grandmother used to say that meant you were due to receive a letter. And Tony.London Suburbs a knife meant you were due to receive a visit from a woman (or was the knife a man and the folk a woman?).

Your faith in science is impressive eater81, bordering on devout. "if all parents walked with their kids to school as you do, then the world would be a better place" Why so?

Fair enough Ps you still owe me for your aborted thread

Forgive me but ... why do people respond to stupid threads like this? In the age of the internet sillywoman could have found answers within a couple of minutes. Instead well-meaning people are directing her to well-known stony beaches? It's a bit like the 'weekend in Paris', 'Weekend in Barcelona' advice threads - ie an excuse for people to show off by saying 'I've been there' Wise up!