DaveR

It's 41 already!

*Bob*, there's no point in carrying on this sterile dispute. We all agree that a "haircut" is a humble product, for which a fee of ?10 is perfectly adequate, and ?15 verging on the princely. James, on his missions 'up West' (or, curiously, 'down East'), is clearly is search of a "hairstyle", which is another thing entirely. For such a beast ?30 or ?40 may indeed be appropriate. Happily, as a gentleman of modesty and discretion, I have never been in need of such frivolity, and so cannot comment.

"Was there not some question about whether the author had embellished the account of his descent into addiction and subsequent recovery?" You might say that - he got sued and fled the country! article

At 190+ for no wicket, you have to be aiming to put yourself in a position where you can't realistically lose, and the other side are under real pressure i.e. bat for 5 sessions and post 550+. Australia did indeed bowl well after tea but Collingwood and Prior got themselves out with poor shots, and Bopara doesn't look like a genuine no.3 to me.

From 200 odd for none to 300 and a bit for 5. Hopes raised and dashed again. If we were just completely rubbish it would be easier to bear.

For dim sum I can also recommend Hong Kong City on Old Kent Road. Our kids love it - tanks with crabs and lobster in, dragons on the walls, and prawn crackers, spring rolls, crispy dumplings and noodles for lunch. For top end dim sum we go to Royal China in Canary Wharf - great food and good fro a walk by the river afterwards (or even a boat trip). We also went recently to Yi Ban, near London City airport. Good food, and the kids can watch the planes take off and land.

Don't remember where I was when I heard Diana had died, but I remember the exact moment (a couple of days later) when I realised that, as a consequence, the world had gone mad. I expressed the opinion that not only was I unaffected by her death, but that in life I had thought she was a silly, trivial woman. Cue outrage, disgust, name-calling and some suggestion of fisticuffs, from a bunch of people I had previously thought to be sane and sensible.

Airlines will monitor their loads constantly and issue special fares/discounts accordingly. They used to put the fares out to selected travel agents who were good at shifting lots of seats quickly, but most now say on their websites that they guarantee they will put their lowest fares up there - some actually do, some don't. For flights, in addition to the airlines websites, I would look here: http://www.cheapflights.co.uk/ http://www.low-cost-airline-guide.com/ http://www.skyscanner.net/ or just google "cheap flight [destination]" Last minute package deals are like the discount shelf at the supermarket - you get what's left over, potentially very cheap (compared to the brochure price) and fine if that holiday is what you would have chosen anyway.

WGGB response is mainly concerned with BBC issues other than what they pay writers, which suggests to me they don't feel they have a particularly strong case. Although we can reasonably expect the BBC to behave differently from purely commercial organisations, they're not the Arts Council, and its not their job to subsidise writers - just pay them a fair rate. Nobody is forced to work for the BBC - if the money is that bad, go write for someone else. What's that? No-one else is prepared to pay you anything? Now I see the problem a little more clearly!

From banning to book-burning is a shorter step than you think Offensiveness (other than direct personal attacks) should never be a good enough reason.

"men with boards ringing my bell" Is that a euphemism for some kind of disgraceful sexual practice? If not, it should be.

I take it all back - Flintoff and Prior have put on 80 already. Great comment on BBc website: "Ponting is wearing the expression of a man who has just unwrapped a toaster on Christmas morning"

Collingwood out. I'm a bit worried about how we match up against the Aussies at 6/7/8 - if Prior, Flintoff and Broad can't stick around with KP for a while, and get some runs themselves, we're going to be in trouble.

DC, at the risk of a pedantry warning, I think "diaspora" is the word; not sure of the plural - "diasporae"? "All correct, but lets be honest here, some people probably come because they get the most benefits here." I think this is a very small minority - many more come because of the ready availability of work compared to the (still) far more regulated and restrictive labour markets in other European countries.

I've paid my taxes for years, and this bloke who lives next to me, he's never worked, and the council gave him a car! Admittedly, he doesn't have any legs, but even so, it's just not fair is it?

Sausage-making Seriously, I've heard that these courses are great.

"Apart from some other guy admitting it was him that did it" Graham Sankey (the other guy) refused to testify at the trial in Bulgaria - no surprise that the Bulgarian court didn't pay much attention to his confession.

"Let's not confuse irritating, petty beaurocracy - like not being able to have a picnic with a bottle of wine in the park - with stuff like parking tickets, car-clamping, speed cameras and other such Clarkson-Brigade fodder. They aren't the same thing." They're not the same thing, but neither are they completely unconnected. [Warning - what follows is quite dull] Current thinking is that essentially all regulatory enforcement should be risk-based and proportionate, which means that not only should local authorities not persecute happy, non-threatening park boozers, they should also not clamp non-traffic obstructing cars, and also not pursue (or not pursue as vigorously) low risk speeding. In the latter cases, in practice, this means thinking a little bit more about how you regulate parking and traffic; in some european countries speed limits on particular roads are different at different times of day, and we already have parking restrictions which are limited to particular times. Putting to one side the Clarkson-esque "I should be able to do whatever I want" argument, I would suggest that there is always a case for asking whether conduct that does not result in harm needs to be penalised. I did say it was dull.

"As a matter of principle I do object to discrimination against any party even if they are perceived to be part of group that can 'take it' from time to time" Are you sure it's not just your irrational fear/hatred of children/parents/breast-feeding/spiral staircases? Did you know that in Nazi Germany "the childless" were forced to wear special badges, just like Jews, gypsies etc., but instead of a star it was a small plaque with "I can go to the pub any time I want" written on it....no, my mistake, that's a load of old toss, just like your argument (again)

He's a cream puff, *Bob*, you can take him!

Hey, cream puff guy! Is this really your top boast? "as a very well respected translator who happens to have co-written several industry standard applications" That is so lame its a shame. Tell me you got a blow job from the 'student' in return for the free software - then I'll be impressed.

"The planet is about the explode" Has anybody got a free seat in their space shuttle?

I wouldn't call Dom an "advanced" learner

In truth it's probably a bit harsh because PROS is actually kind of loveable in an entirely bonkers way. I would have put a smiley/winky face icon at the end but I didn't because I hate them with a passion that burns.

Huegonot It annoys me when these nasty little people, often with limited reasoning skills, would use the freedom others have won them to take it away from our society. I suppose you think the Communities Sustainabilities Act was set up by our caring local, central ?? goverment, people have fought for years with beaurocracy to make this happen, but of course most of the posters on here will believe that its only the good people of dulwich who deal with REAL problems (will it be a waitrose, budgen,). Southwark council are being there usual anti social selves, not giving the people a voice even though it states in the act the community should [missing word] a big part in it. Pro, you will find on this site a group mentality, lots of them know each other, ( monthly social drink), they justify being rude, refuse to debate, then constantly accuse usually one or two people who have diffrent views, you are not welcome on this site if you talk about anything that remotely shakes there safe little world. And we are pedantic about spelling and grammar. Actually, I think we are pretty representative of the local populace, with all shades of the political spectrum represented and respected when serious points are made. In common with many British people we also have a pretty low tolerance of loony extremism, although naturally we react by poking fun rather than anything more threatening. (I keep on saying we - I am not presuming to speak for anyone else, but I do base my views on my observations of the majority of forum participants)