Loz

More seriously - if you can get computedshorty in front of a camera I'd happily watch the final product.

My guess is, considering Foxy is currently in a foreign country posting from public internet connections, some sort of anti-spam unusual-activity detector has kicked in. Nothing to see here folks.

Wiping your arse? There's an app for that.

Interestingly, there are two definitions for this phrase: one the euphemism and the second a legal term meaning caught in the act of committing a crime. Which do you mean? Or is it both at the same time, even?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > maxxi Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I've gone rogue. I may even strap on my shin-pads > > and saunter into the Family Room... > > You think shinpads will protect you there? Good > luck. You wont be sauntering out......... Agreed. I'd fully recommend a good cricket box, maxxi. Maybe three.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Kids company should have a garrenteed income stream, or the state should provide these types of services > themselves. The work is too important to leave to chance. The government is still offering the money so long as CB relinquishes her role as CEO. If the charity is indeed being mismanaged, that is not a unfair thing to demand. ?5m a year shouldn't be handed over without some sort of oversight. I'm glad CB is staying on in a new role. No one can doubt her enthusiasm and her PR ability. Not too long ago, Kids Company was THE charity in the City and that was all down to CB. There is still a lot she can do for Kids Company. She has always been the face of the charity and I'm pleased that will continue.

Salsaboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She's on ?90k a year. Allegedly. I don't have an issue with that. ?90k for running a large organisation like that isn't excessive.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > First in with.... > > I thought that was going to link to 'Confessions of a Window Cleaner'.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And one where you can get a good pint for under > ?4. Or certainly no more than ?4. If you are ever over Ealing way, drop into the bar at Questors Theatre, open every evening. ?2.40/?2.70 for a guest ale, ?3.30 for Kronenburg and ?2.10 for a G&T. That's two pints and 20p change from a fiver! Dropping into a 'normal' pub comes as a bit of a shock, now. The Questors bar's other claim to fame is that this scene was filmed there:

Sad, but it seems there is more to the story than the Guardian is letting on. http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/government-refusing-funding-to-kids-company-charit Even the numbers in the Guardian story seem strange - the government won't give us ?5m so we have to make ?14m worth of cuts?

Ta, gbal30! Or, actually: Excellent! [plays air guitar]

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But I admire nonetheless your spirited by daft > attempt to start a fire without any fuel. After your master-class that started this?

There was more than a whiff of "back in your box, love", though.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Never ceases to amaze me - the level of basic misogyny meted-out to largely harmless female > targets who stick dare to their head above the parapet. Considering your baiting of the "largely harmless" Louisa last week, you might be on a bit of dodgy ground there, *Bob*.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 'Absolute gold'? You reckon? Low standards, I guess, Loz. They're piss-poor. Cringeworthy. The second > one doesn't even make any sense, no matter how many times you read it. Erm, yes. Piss-poor and cringeworthy are why they are 'gold'. The first one didn't make a lot of sense, either. You're the last person I thought I'd have to explain that to.

There is some absolute gold in the comments section. My favourite: "Spot on churchy the powers that be are afraid of you because all the grannies love you". A close runner up was: "Seems to me, Charlotte, that you have more balls than do your detractors. And, being a lass, that?s a scrotal burden you?re not encumbered with."

That had all the depth of a Katie Hopkins' diatribe.

joannapratt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I leant our navy-blue Phil and Ted buggy ... Maybe it's just gone on an excellent adventure? Or perhaps just a bogus journey?

Fear not, Gloves! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ginger-pride-festival-to-take-place-next-summer-as-organisers-say-time-of-bullying-gingers-is-over-10349524.html

No, really... http://images.psxextreme.com/wallpapers/psp/the_cake_is_a_lie_515.jpg And it's not even a socialist cake, either.

Since your symptoms are so marked, you'd be a great candidate for a double-blind test, to see if your intolerance is physical or not.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Socialist definition of mansion is a lie. The cake is a lie.

I've been called many things on these boards. 'Socialist' is a first, though. :)) Also, the OED defines 'mansion' as "A large, impressive house.". Pretty much sums up those Dulwich houses.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Overdevelopment? On a road that contains > several > > mansions? Yeah right... > > Mansions ? > > You should maybe go to spec savers ... or perhaps > look up the definition of mansion .. or even have > another look at the site if you haven't already. I would class all those Georgian houses between the village and the park as mansions. Doubly so when you consider what would be affected by the proposed 'mansion tax'.

Apparently, if you eat at a Greek restaurant you get to vote whether or not to pay the bill afterwards.