Loz

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ach, don't be churlish, you're asking for an ad to > reflect the way things ought to be, rather than > how they actually are. A bit of both, actually. Media (and I include ads in that) both reflects and guides society. That's why ads such as Proctor and Gambles 'Sponsoring Mums', Iceland's 'Mums go to Iceland' and ASDA latest 1950's effort are so problematic. Whilst they may reflect basic statistical majorities, is that what we really want? Take IKEA's airbrushing of women from their Saudi catalogue and Ford's airbrushing of black faces from a photo in Poland. Is that sexism and racism at play, or just the reflection of society? It's probably both, but should the companies in question be let off for just showing things 'how they actually are'?

Nice try Rosie... but the ad is offensive to both men and women. Women because it does perpetrate the idea that women only should be responsible for shopping and bringing up children and, in this case, Christmas. For men because it disregards the fact that the most enlightened men in our society do their fair share of these tasks (and in some cases alone) and this leads to the problems seen in family courts denying fathers access to their children. That the thing about equality, you can't pick and choose the bits you like or - worse - try and keep the bits that actually benefit you. If you can't see the sexism here then 1975 just called and would like its opinions back.

Actually, I've long considered Asda and Iceland's advertising sexist, so it's nice to see one of them under pressure to drag itself into the 21st century.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Don't build the Emirates stupid cable car ?15M Saved > 2. Continue the cheap Oil deal we had ?20M saved > 3. Don't upgrade Leicester Square ?17m saved YES 17 Miliion ! > > That's cut the fares a bit. TfL has an annual budget of about ?9bn, so your savings are fairly trivial.

After quite a bit of searching (certainly more than three minutes), I finally found what I believe is the 'Schofield List'. Huge. Explosive, even. (If true, of course)

Harriet Harmen. Euch. Just reeks with insincerity.

This is still the best spam ever... http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,920547,920575 You can't beat an emotional doohickey.

Burbage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Annette Curtain Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Most of them ? > > Very nearly all of them. But I've always been a > sucker for kittens. What? I've heard of sex for money, but sucking for kittens??

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am sure they will be hammered at the next election, quite a lot of Limp Dems voters have > defected to UKIP I very surprised if they get back into a coalition with the Tories. UKIP get their support from disaffected Tories. BNP from disaffected Labour working class. Green from disaffected Labour and Lib Dem sandal wearers. No one votes for the SWP.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One thing The Green Party does not do. > > Well you cannot go on about Concervation whilst posting tons of > paper literature through 1000's of doors. Are you joking? The Greens producing and distribute leaflets. I always considered it rather ironic, really.

maritap Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes do report it. When my 17yr old goes out, I allow her to come as far as the Lane and ill drive > and meet her at the bus stop. I don't let her walk down the residential streets alone. It's such a > shame. Hope your daughters ok.she also babysits in the Dulwich area. It can be midnight before she is > finished. I get out of my bed to collect her. There's no way I will allow her to walk. Better to > be safe than sorry I always tell her. Once again hope your daughters ok Just be glad you don't have a son, then, as he would be statistically far more likely to be physically attacked.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Crikey. I'm not sure I have data that needs that > kind of protection! My cheque book is on the > sideboard. > > What kind of stuff do you protect? Passport scans and bank related stuff.

Wibble.

Cars don't straddle speed humps. People do. Ditto, bicycles don't run red lights and ride on pavements, people do. Get rid of all the people. That's the solution.

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The way to stop it is to remove the speed bumps > > and *shock* police the roads, targetting bad > > drivers. > > Great idea, but maybe theres something that can be > done while we wait for that ball to start > rolling? A large mob, brandishing pitchforks and torches, perhaps?

Go buy some cheap Cava and serve with a shlosh of Sloe Gin. Magic.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Charles is a one-man case for republicanism. I like Charles. Yeah, he's a bit barking, but so would you be if you've spent the last half-century waiting for your mum to fall off the perch so you can get the job you've been training your life for. I think the day Charles is king and Boris is PM will be the day this country gets a half-decent sense of humour.

Can' really see the point of this, especially as you can put ?5640 worth of shares in a share ISA anyway.

Salsaboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, it's more a case of Dyson with death. Oh, bravo, Sir. :D

OBE? Knighthood, you mean. Apparently there is no precedence for stripping knighthoods from the deceased. Also, it would need a full, formal investigation. After all, he's not actually been found guilty of anything yet.

If you don't want the doctor/antidepressant route, nip to Sainsburys and pick up some St John's Wort - they do an own brand version for a couple of quid (specialist brands are much more expensive). Everyone is different in how they respond to these things, but they helped me massively.

Horsebox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northlondoner Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Back off. Sly and Reggie are terrific. > > Sly. Reggie. Terrific. > > 3 words that don't belong together, ever. I dunno. "I think it's terrific Sly and Reggie have stopped making that terrific noise". I even got terrific in twice!

northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Back off. Sly and Reggie are terrific. Why do I get the feeling you are a fan of Jedward as well?

Get your insurance company involved. They have better lawyers than you.

I feel the same about 'schedule'. It's SHED-ule, not bloody SKED-ule.