Loz

Will the old jute garden bags still be collected and can you put food waste in them?

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do however support the testing of medicines and medical procedures on animals - believing, very > sincerely, that this is for the greater good. +1

My problem is that I lobbed all my recycling into my shiny new blue bin and then read the leaflet telling me it all starts in October...

I think they are all just full of ... http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/25941620_dc5bc0d349.jpg

Thomas Micklewright Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i always give other cyclists a nod. > > why are there so many people not wearing helmets > cycling, perplexes me? Darwinism in action.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MM - I would say it is fair for the reasons > Timster highlights - the effects of that tax take > affect those in the 50% tax bracket very little in > comparison to those at the bottom end of the > scale. But DC, I think we are all pretty much in agreement that the 'bottom end of the scale' should be lifted out of the tax regime. What needs to be assessed is the 'squeezed middle'. Is it really squeezed? Or, if you like, what is the definition of 'rich'. We know that the 50% tax bracket actually doesn't take in very much - most of the arguments for it are political rather than economic. So, if someone has to pay 'their share', who is this and how much should they pay?

Animal testing on cosmetics is, I believe, banned in the EU. Is it that big a problem? What percentage of cosmetics for sale in the UK are made outside the EU?

There is a laughably smaller brown thing inside it, too.

I would. Seriously. I would not flog myself to death for less than half of the pay for working that extra day. How many people turn down extra work on the weekends or evenings because it's really not worth it? Not that my industry does it, but if I was offered to work, say, and extra half day on a Saturday (paid) I really couldn't turn them down quick enough.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you have an employer willing to let you work 4 days a week, good luck to you I do have an employer that would let me work a four day week. Unfortunately, I don't have an employer that pays me ?150K+ a year.

Timster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So you'd turn down a pay rise that took you into the 50p tax bracket? Really?? Not turn it down and continue working as usual, but start scaling down hours to keep my total income out of it. Actually, I'd probably chuck more into my pension for the short term, but longer term I'd drop to a four day week.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So person A is taking home 120k and person B is > taking home 20k? > > Which of those two individuals is better placed to > contribute more to the tax take? > > Or, if the tax take is to be frozen and private > enterprise is to step in, which of the individuals > will suffer more from the cutbacks? But if you take that to it's logical conclusion, SJ, we should take tax from the highest earner until he/she takes home the same as the second highest earner. Then, take from them until they take home the same as the third highest. Continue until either the exchequer has enough money, or everyone takes home the same. I am all in favour of jacking up the personal allowance to 12K or 15K as I have never understood the logic of governments taking away people's tax, just to give it all back to them in the form of benefits. That limit should be set at what would be considered what used to be called the breadline. But above that, *everybody* should contribute in what should be seen as a fair way. And frankly, when you get to the point where more of your next payrise goes to the government than to you, what is the point? If I ever get to that point (not going to happen, but still), I'd be cutting back on my hours rather than slogging it out for no real gain. Unless it was because my fantasy business had come off, in which case I'd be getting the accountants and tax advisers in.

Am I the only person that thinks they have a certain beauty to them? I kind of like wind turbines on the landscape and flying over the bank of them placed in the middle of the channel was very impressive.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And how does your lovely missus find the soup? Filling.

No, you're thinking of: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OZFZ5F1WF6Q/RqunJwKmHFI/AAAAAAAAACE/7r1uV1LzXvw/s320/Dickmanns_Schokokusse__469557.jpg

For dessert you can have one of these: http://bigstupididiot.com/files/2009/09/badcandy4.jpg

I really wanted to dislike Tulisa, since I think that N-Dubz is the biggest joke bands Britain has produced since the HeeBeeGeeBees. But, damnit, she actually rather likeable.

Yep, the last one got me as well. Just could not see the pattern.

So what, I'm better looking than Wayne Rooney. I hope.

The most amusing thing about the Nadine Dorries thing was the number of people suddenly rushing to her side who would have all loved to have strung her up from the nearest tree any time during the previous three weeks. My enemy's enemy...

As for the other stuff, I think he is realising it is a problem. The PR people are onto it (though the list of stuff released yesterday to attract the female vote was rather laughable). He'll change his spots quickly enough now he realises it could cost him votes.

UUUURRGH! More of this Fawcett Society crap. Women are 'suffering' proportionally more than men because women *benefit* proportionally more than men from government spending. More women than men are employed by the PS. Plus also the FS mistakenly included child benefit payments as female income. I didn't hear any complaints during the good years that men were benefiting less from Budget announcements. As someone once quipped, if there was a major catastrophe the Guardian headline would read, "WORLD COMING TO END - WOMEN DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED.

Cue: Rosie.

Not quite, though your website was key! And yes, although I did get to facebook in the end, that didn't give me all the actually useful info like address and phone number. But, the point is, the less info you release online the better. And the safer. You don't need much info on someone to start ID theft. Or to stalk. For instance, I am on facebook, but any info is strictly locked down to friends only. And I take that approach to all info - both online and real life. I use 'Mailinator' regularly when I need a temporary email address for things like site registration. Places like Currys, etc that want your home address 'for warranty purposes' every time you buy something like a camera or USB stick or whatever get short shrift with me.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just because you use your real name does not mean that everybody knows where you live. I reckon, if I wanted to, I could find out the address of most people if I knew they were from East Dulwich. There is lots of information out there. I didn't even have your surname, Sue, but about two minutes searching gives me your name, address, phone number, school, university and the knowledge that you have a strange attraction to barking and you have a round window on your front door. Mind you, you are very open about your information and were easy to search.