Loz

That's be a juke box in the corner full of Westlife songs, then.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The distribution of wealth may have increased since that period, but I know which decade I'd > > prefer to be a poor person. And it ain't the 60s/70s. > > There is no moral justification for making the poor poorer. Who said they would be? If I am richer (and better off) than I were, but relatively poorer than you, am I richer or poorer?

Glad to be of help. If you want a second tip then, if you travel, open a Metrobank account - they are (I think) the only ones left that don't charge you to use foreign ATMs. We opened one for a holiday account after the Nationwide pulled the plug on the previously well-publicised deal. Save on the 4% to 5% that other banks charge.

It's there in the 'middle' doorway. Charges you some outlandish fee like 7%. I think you can take your coins into a Metro bank and they have free machines.

Aussie pub squash - lemon squash concentrate mixed with lemonade.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree. The common denominators are striking from high unemployment, oppression of people, > distraction tactics to wealth transfer with the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. Are the 'poor' in the UK better or worse off - as a standard of living - compared to the 60's and 70's? The distribution of wealth may have increased since that period, but I know which decade I'd prefer to be a poor person. And it ain't the 60s/70s.

woodrot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Did she murder him? > > do you want a serious answer or one for the lolz? A serious one will suffice. > Why not have a read about Brian nelson & the Thatcher supported UDR death squads A different issue.

Did she murder him?

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also, dismissing a female activist/author because > she is attractive smacks of latent misogyny. I wish people would understand the difference between the word 'sexist' and the words 'misogynist'/'misandrist'. They are not synonyms. Or, in this case, are you really saying that 'dismissing a female activist/author because she is attractive smacks of' a 'hatred of women'? Really? A bit OTT don't you think?

Oooh, keen! Here's their website... http://www.hamletshealthclub.com/

I'd happily recommend the one in Dulwich Hamlets FC. Cheap and cheerful, but does the job and is rarely crowded.

You need port forwarding to make it visible to the internet, so you can access your files when you are out of the home. Sam - I have a QNAP. PM me and I'll see if I can help.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Being able to park near your home should take precedence over the parking convenience of > shoppers/commuters; it should be up to the people who live on the street that has the problem > whether it should be a CPZ or not. I would agree to that on one condition. All homes on streets wanting to be part of a CPZ may purchase a windscreen sticker allowing them to park on their given street. However, the same sticker also makes it an offence to park that car on ANY other residential street in ED (CPZ or otherwise). Still want one, HenryB? Where will you park when your CPZ street is full (as it almost certainly will be)?

Same as the difference between a civil and a criminal case.

What? Your mate wiring up cookers? More boom than bust, I suspect.

Heh, heh. I was waiting for that. My money was on Brendan, though.

OK, this is going to be interesting... with John Terry being charged by the CPS, will someone make a similar complaint against Suarez now? Will the CPS investigate/charge him as well?

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, has this got more to do with our guilt > over our shameful racialist past rather than what went on on the field? Depends what you mean by 'our'. If you mean 'football', then yes.

No, 93 years. Act of Union 1707 - England and Scotland Act of Union 1800 - UK and Ireland

The Kingdom of Ireland was at the time of union, though, Brendan.

UDT: really, how you can call someone else a troll? You and silverfox are cut from the same, albeit different patterned, cloth.

I'm with Townleygreen - in the modern sense UK is England, Wales, Scotland and NI. Following the Act of Union, the UK was England, Wales (that were considered to be one kingdom) and Scotland. All of Ireland (which was also a kingdom at the time) was added a little later with another Act of Union, before the Republic separated at the time of the partitioning, leaving the UK as it is today.

I think this will either be a landmark case, or it will all come crashing down around the FA's ears. Such a large punishment for a mixed-race person's comment to a black person must be pretty ground-breaking. It'll be interesting to see the full judgement. The evidence had better be solid - I reckon Liverpool can afford better lawyers than the FA.

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maplins sell them. Maplins? I didn't think they sold anything without a USB interface

Does anyone sell PAYG broadband dongles in ED? I need one tomorrow.