Loz

You turn up to black tie dos with a fakie? Tsk. 53) Own your own DJ.

Ah, good point on the paying cash, quids. Silly mistake of mine, considering I've explained to people avoidance vs evasion so many times.

Yep - that change should stop that as well, Sue.

You learn something every day. Thanks, Mick Mac

Fink was technically correct. Is there anyone who hasn't practised some sort of tax avoidance? ISAs, duty free shopping, paying cash to avoid VAT, etc, etc.

Which one are you referring to, quids?

My shelves could probably be better, might struggle on nappy changing (never had to) and I don't give a flying f*** about football. But I have the rest pretty much covered. His parents address? Really? Who doesn't know their parents address? (Obvious exceptions apply.) I would add: 51) How to cook a decent dinner party meal for six people 52) How to tie a proper bow tie

Not enough research, Sue! Google is again your friend... http://www.ehow.co.uk/how_7298852_disable-ink-detect-epson.html

You can claim the interest on mortgages that are for properties that are let (or empty and available to let). So if you own three properties with mortgages, let two of them and live in one, you can claim on your tax the interest for the two let property mortgages only. This is why most people crank up BTL mortgages as high as possible and pay their primary residence mortgage down as far as possible. Income and costs are treated as one lump (i.e. not itemised per property), so you are taxed on [total of your rental income - total of your interest/expenses].

Someone should invent the 'mock suit' - a suit with a shirt and tie sewn in to the jacket - for that moment you are in jeans/t-shirt but have to meet a client at short notice. Or take a Skype video call.

Fan oven, so shouldn't be that bad. Also, the position of the failures changes. I've taken to making twice as many so I can dump the runts. Last night, only one failed to impress, normally it is two or three.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > More egg or more heat, Loz. Any more heat and they'll combust. I stick the pan on the gas flame for a while before throwing in the batter, just to make sure that oil is smokin'. But it's the fact that IN THE SAME BATCH some will rise and some won't that truly annoys me. I need Heston Blumen-wotsit on the case. There's some science here I'm missing.

Yorkshire puddings. Why oh why do some puff up beautifully and some barely at all. Last week I think I actually created a batch of Yorkshire biscuits by accident. Little feckers.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You miss the point Loz. Most men do not go 50/50 with the mother on all aspects of childcare. And > until that changes, men can't expect to be seen as equal in effort to women. Add to that, that 92% of > single parent families are women too. That's a lot of women doing most of the work when it comes to > children. All a bit chicken and egg though, isn't it. To cross a couple of themes, it's a bit like 30 years ago saying that women don't want to be doctors since only about 8% of doctors were female. Quite a few single parents are women because both society and the law expect/allow the woman to take the kids. I'd like to know if a husband has ever successfully taken the kids and left the wife. Fathers have made huge leaps forwards in the past 10-15 years. Getting involved is now seen a positive thing, with some great male role models out there. But still, as RPC bemoans, women are expected by society to be the primary carer... and men are expected to not be. We've changed a lot of attitudes in society in the past few decades - this should not be difficult. Equalising maternity and paternity is a good start and sends a signal from government that mothers and father both have to be active and involved parents. > What do you guys want? All men to share childcare equally so that we as a gender can be recognised on equal footing? Why not? If someone brings a child into this world, is it not too much to ask for them to actually look after it?

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From a feminist perspective, what I've seem in my own adult life is that whenever women take on jobs > formerly done exclusively by men, the job itself appears to be devalued by association. When men > take on jobs traditionally done by women, it takes a lot longer for the perception of the role to > change in the other direction. Is that just your perception though, RPC? In the past doctors, architects, police, lawyers, politics, bankers and business in general have all been considered 'male' roles. None of those, I think, have been devalued by females entering their ranks. In fact, I think females make up the majority of trainee doctors. Banking has been seriously devalued, but that's not because of any female influence! And no one has ever thought much of politicians.

Lets not pretend there is any altruistic reason in Labour's focus on women. The last few elections have shown that women are more likely to vote Labour, so the simple maths would suggest more women = more Labour votes. But I don't think there is anything wrong with a man in Hattie's constituency asking exactly why he should vote for someone who seems entirely focussed on only canvassing her female constituents?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you/ have you guys changed nappies? Got the kids up, dressed them, dropped them off to school, > washed all their clothes, cleaned the house, cooked their dinner, bathed them before bed AND > gone to work, every day for five years? Because that's what my wife did. I helped some days, but I > wasn't doing it every day. So no way would I even claim that I'm underappreciated as a father. I'd > argue the opposite to be honest. OK, so you failed to pull your weight as a dad. I kind of hope you look back with a little disappointment at what you missed and how you failed to contribute. But you are but one type of father. I've had friends that have gone into it 50/50 and are great fathers. Changed nappies/bathed/dropped off to school, the lot. Yet when it came to the first year off - probably the most important year - guess which parent got to take time off work? Personally, I'd award parents 26 weeks each, use 'em or lose 'em. Single parents can have all 52.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The focus on women as mothers is so strong that when I tried Googling for stats on men who don't > have children all the answers were about women. Same for marriage. Clearly there are still strong > assumptions that these are things that define women but not men. Not sure if the ONS even > collects stats for men as they do for women. Depressing. Quite. And such assumptions hurt men as much as it hurts women. Be it in custody battles or paternity leave or other child issues. And I put a lot of blame on us men for allowing the under-appreciation of fathers to continue. When that news about Miliband doubling paternity leave came out the other day, the number of guys posting sarcastic/negative comments under the Guardian article really just annoyed me. And as for incidents like this reported today... http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/557543/Elm-Park-man-fired-Chadwell-Heath-Sainsbury-s-taking-time-off-newborn-son-and-sick-wife

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > 80% of adult women have had children? Is it really that high? > > According to the ONS > (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/fertility-analysis/ > cohort-fertility--england-and-wales/2011/sty-1-in- > 5-women-are-childless-at-45.html) unless the red > mist was so strong I misread it. Ah, so 1 in 5 women at age 45 or above don't have children. That make more sense. I assume they used 45 as a rough 'now or never' marker.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it's not QUITE as bad as vans telling peolpe to go back home tho is it? Well, no. There is a bad idea, a terrible idea, an awful idea and then that. The Barbie Bus is more like Kinnock in 1992, arriving in a helicopter. Not a big thing on paper, but potentially it is seriously election affecting.

Sports headlines heading an article that is really not news at all. For example: England cricketer says: England can win world cup Footballer says: We can win on Saturday Tennis player says: I can win a grand slam FFS - just do some of that journalism thing.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lot's of manufacturers make things in pink aimed at women, and you know what? It sells! So does sex, but using it in a political campaign will - quite rightly - see a lot of crap dumped on you from a very great height. Labour is going to get a LOT of bad press about this. The damage will be much greater than the any perceived selling advantage.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Harperson in being clueless again shocker For all of Mad Hattie being a sexist old 70's dinosaur, she's actually a pretty shrewd political operator. I am really rather surprised she is involved with this. Her attempts to describe the colour as 'magenta' suggests she may not have quite been completely on board with the idea.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also deeply resent the fact that when politicians talk about women voters, they > immediately mention childcare policies, as though that's what defines women. But surely also the outdated view that only women can talk to women about such serious matters? Most people can have an equally political conversation with a member of either sex. I can understand that you would want a good showing by female MPs as a way to show role models of women in politics, but a blanket ban on any men is pretty offensive to both genders. > Why are men never defined in terms of whether they've produced children? Why aren't children seen to be the > responsibility of men and women equally? Why hasn't this attitude moved on in thirty years? In the same week, Ed M has announced a good policy in increasing paternity leave, so it's a bit one step forward, two steps back going on with Labour. > Half the women in the country aren't married and a fifth don't have children. Keep up. 80% of adult women have had children? Is it really that high?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Little girls only wear so much pink because they have mum's (and dad'd) who dress them in it... I always thought that, but I've noticed that my friends who have daughters have all gone through the 'pink stage', even though the parents discouraged it. Like anything, it's a fashion - other little girls wear pink, so they want to as well.