Loz

Australia had a 'Metric Day' back in the mid-seventies and pretty much everything went metric on that day. In fact, for quite a few years afterwards you couldn't buy tape measures, etc, in imperial, which really annoyed my father. But, even he got used to it and after a while worked out it was actually easier and more accurate to work with something like 5mm rather than 3/16". Milk was sold in 600ml, rather than the silly 568ml. Everything else went to the nearest rounded amount as well. Sometimes the British show an unusually stubborn determination to be stuck in their ways. And we still somehow manage to make sponge cakes, WoD! (And we even occasionally cut them into squares, roll them in chocolate and coconut and call them 'Lamingtons'.)

LD929 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I hate ice cream vans, they pollute the air near > playgrounds and they target obese children. I hope > the one on Adys Road packs in. They 'target' obese children? What do they do, follow them around waving 99's at them?

I assume he didn't try to charge you after turfing you out. Might be a new strategy - wait until you are reasonably close to your destination and mention Uber loudly, get kicked out - free cab ride!

Won't SOMEBODY think of the snails?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why re-privatise the East Coast mainline which was making a profit and bringing money into the > exchequer for example? DOR made about ?200m per year. Virrgin are expected to pay ?3.3bn to the treasury over the upcoming eight years of the franchise. But the main problem was that DOR ran ECML during the "easy" phase of running a railway. There were some big costs coming up, which DOR by itself could not fund. DOR had been allowed to defer a major maintenance programme on it's rolling stock (which could be deferred no longer) and it could not afford to introduce the 65 new trains due in 2018 (replacing the current 39 and adding 50% more capacity). So, DOR's profits would have plummeted (if not become loss-making) during the upcoming phase and it would have needed an injection of money for investment. Thus the government wanted to get ECML back into private hands to cover those investment costs plus still get money into the exchequer. Labour would have almost certainly done the same thing for the same reasons.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you look at what's happening, for example, at the Heygate, then Social Cleansing doesn't seem > that hyperbolic. You can find occasional examples of anything, but that doesn't go to prove a wider policy. There is no policy to socially cleanse London - it's just a side-effect of other policies. Which leads onto (and kind of agrees) your other comment... > ... but my main issue is the failure to see the bigger picture. You can't talk about reducing dependency > on state intervention and at the same time pursue policies which increase house prices, depress wages > and see public services delivered through more complex, less accountable and more expensive mechanisms. I agree with you on the first part, but not necessarily the second. Privatisation, done properly and in the right areas, can be a more efficient way to deliver services. Done badly and it is as much of a drain on public finances as a nationalised services done badly. If you are completely for or completely against privatisation, then you are just an ideologue. I am a big fan of government services and a big opponent to government handing out money, generally because it doesn't work. Take housing benefit. All it does it throw fuel onto a very big bonfire and pretty much fails to achieve what it is supposed to. Far better to build more social housing and successfully accommodate a fewer number of people, than to throw a lot of money at a lot people and fail to achieve anything.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ratty Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > And the social cleansing that is now beginning in > > earnest in London is quite sinister I think. > > Totally agree. Is it really 'social cleansing' (which implies it is an actual purposeful policy) or is it just the fact that government after government (of all parties involved) have consistently failed to build enough housing to satisfy demand, and now we are seeing the result in that people are being priced out of London?

Considering how many excellent ComputedShorty posts there are, I would guess you've been pretty badly misinformed.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Knocking on doors is a classic way to establish if > someojne is in or not. We get so many chuggers and sellers round our way, if the door bell rings and I'm not expecting anyone/anything I generally look out the upstairs window to see who's there.

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > um, no, Agent Orange is not the same as glyphosate... Unless you consider a nuclear missile is the same as a hand grenade, on the basis they both go 'boom'.

The Welsh choir should have won - that was a truly magnificent arrangement of Hallelujah, brilliantly sung. The dog act wasn't even as good as Ashleigh and Pudsey a few years ago. I think they should get Duckworth and Lewis in to try and devise a system where the running order is taken out as a factor. Maybe a vote for the first act is worth a slightly higher value than a vote for the second which in turn is worth a slightly higher value for the third, etc, etc.

keekybreeks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > at least blatter sorta worked for his money "Worked"? Well, that's an interesting use of the word.

I'm an indecent poster. I'm not actually wearing any clothes.

Don't buy "instant light" charcoal. It burns too hot and too fast, before turning to ash. You don't get the nice bit where it just glows (which is when you do the actual cooking). Personally, my next BBQ will be gas with lava rocks, even though it is tantamount to heresy amongst "serious" BBQers.

Even the rather anti-Tory Mirror seems to be getting in on the benefits cap, in a quite extraordinary bile-filled piece. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/children-victims-tory-welfare-cap-5784476

If it was sent by Royal Mail (which it was) then RM will deliver it, junk mail signs or otherwise. They don't make the call on if it is junk or not.

EDF seems to have turned into a sexting channel.

When the most left wing candidate for Labour leader comes out with agreement further welfare cuts. including the new, lower cap on benefits, you can see the election result is really starting to hit home for Labour. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/29/labours-andy-burham-further-welfare-cuts-leader-business

It must be a London-wide letter drop - we got them today over in West London.

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, you do realise that the dog was wearing a > mask and not actually talking?! Of course. I thought that was obvious, but reading other replies, it seems not. The RSPCA looked into it and had no problem, so that's good enough for me.

Quite liked the dog act. Certainly less barking than the puppet act.

That puppet act was completely bonkers! Absolutely barking. #idontwannagointherocket

His speech to the American Senate committee was just amazing, but apart from that... just no.

Beej Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm sure it's very nice but, IT'S MCDONALDS!!!!!!!! So, you'd rather go somewhere else that may have less nice coffee, just because it's a McDs? #pretentious > btw Did you know it's called McDavid's in Jerusalem #uselesstrivia There is a McDavids, but it's a different fast food company. There are proper McDonalds in Jerusalem/Israel also.

cella Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why is it always called a parlour when ice cream is involved? ... or massages. ... or "massages", even.