Loz

I have eaten chicken feet. It was in Thailand in a street side market. I thought, like 1000 year old eggs and other strangely named SE Asian food, it wouldn't really be chicken feet like it said on the menu. But it was. Very gristly and crunchy. The toenails were particularly off putting.

If you are not feckless, are you fecked?

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Clever answer Loz, but just wondering which side you would be on. > The victimised fox or the murderous sicko's? > Or the no idea, don't have a clue, sitting on the fencers? I'm not sure you are really grasping how little I care on the subject. As I said, I find too many morons on both side of the argument to want to take sides.

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Regardless of what can/can't be added to the thread, I'm so intrigued about something, I'm asking anyway: > > Loz, WHY don't you care? Because it is argument packed with complete losers on both sides. One side, some well meaning animals types who are far outnumbered by idiotic class warriors. The other, some well meaning traditional country types who are far outnumbered by a different type of idiotic class warriors. A pox on both their houses, frankly.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 0.5/10 How the hell does that drearily unimaginative, slightly illiterate, faux rantette get 0.5? You feeling generous?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is not a thread to discuss Fox Hunting but a > chance to express any apposing views and sign the petition. Not that I really care one way or the other about the subject, but you don't have the right to define who can and can't add to the thread, Foxy.

I dunno about 'vibrant', but 'edgy' seems to be any place with a reasonable number of prostitutes and a good chance of being mugged on a semi-regular basis.

I agree with Foxy - much better to stick your hand in your pocket and give DEC money. That way they can get exactly what they need.

bodsier Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ A pretty withering response: http://brackenworld.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/did-ramesh-patel-get-paid-for-this.html

The Daily Mash strikes again... http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/new-party-for-socialist-misanthropes-a-hit-2015051598325

Black cabs are great for short hops of a mile or two. For longer runs like airport trips you generally need to take out a second mortgage. From LHR to ED you're looking at the wrong side of a hundred quid.

A good summary of the uphill task facing Labour to regain power. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/labours-path-back-power-tougher-you-think They either have to radically change (of which I think they have no stomach - or brains - for) or just sit around waiting for the electorate to tire of the Tories (so, 2025 at the earlist).

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That is a really interesting question, and you could similarly ask about other protected > businesses and industries. Other examples include farmers in the US, banks everywhere, landlords > here etc. It's not very ideologically consistent. Landlords?

bermygirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The red raised bricks are also not pedestrian > crossings! I don't know what twit thought that. > They are to warn blind people that they have > arrived at a crossing. Good grief. You're thinking of the pavement slabs with raised dots on the edges of junctions. Different beastie.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A comment in a blog about the decline of the > left-wing Social Democratic parties in Scandanavia > and Austria caught my eye. It could easily apply > to the Labour party here: > Which is kind of the point I made earlier. The 'split brain' of the left - urban left and working class - is just not compatible any more. They will never live happily under the same banner. I think the UK left need to take a cue from the Australian right. Over there it is divided into the Liberal Party (urban right) and National Party (rural/farming areas). They act as different parties but have a long-standing coalition agreement - even to the point they go into coalition where one could actually govern on its own. Mind you, Australia has the AV system of voting for the lower house. Perhaps the antiquated FPTP system would just split the lefts vote.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can't have it both ways, Loz. > > The unions are affiliated to the party. They are responsible for its founding and its funding. They > also represent exactly the type of voter you and others have said the party are struggling to > connect with. Whilst Labour did lose a lot of it old school union vote to UKIP, its problems are much wider than that. They have to appeal to a wide range of voters. The lesson from 2015 should be if you only target your core support, you lose. Like it or not, most of the electorate don't like the idea of unions controlling a party. > If you pay, through your union subs, to fund the party I think its fair you should have a say > in the leadership. It will force candidates to appeal to a far wider caucus than just their > colleagues. I think that can only be a good thing. The unions no longer have a 'say' - they have 90% of the voters. It will force the candidates to suck up to the unions, at least for the leadership campaign. > If you cut that link, the party ceases to perform its raison d'etre. No, unless the party starts to widen its appeal, it will cease to be a serious threat to the Tories. That's the message from 2015, and that's what you're not getting. If Labour elects someone perceived to be a union lackey, they will lose wider public support. Like it or not, unions are not popular outside the union movement. Blair knew that, and that's why he (successfully) moved the party in the way he did. By 2020, the Tories will have completed the boundary review and, should Scotland try again for independence and succeed, it will be a long, long time before Labour get another look-in at government unless they reinvent themselves.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The highest figure I can find for income lost to offshore investments and tax avoidance schemes is > 99bn a year (BBC). Though that sounds like the rather made-up figure by the terribly numerically inept Tax Research UK. The official figure is ?34bn.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What in Heaven's name are the benefits from immigration. Well, for starters you get to have me in the country... :))

I read today Labour has changed their voting rules for the next leader election. Last time, they had three colleges - MPs (about 260), Labour members (250k) and unions (2 million). The MPs and members voted narrowly for David M, the unions voted strongly for Ed and got him over the line. This time, it's one person one vote. In other words, the 2 million union votes will decide the election. Don't suck up completely to the unions and you leadership bid is effectively scuppered. That's Labour screwed for 2020 already.

Could be one of a few things: 1) If you have a network cable you can plus straight into your router, try that. If the speed is OK, then it will be your wireless - most probably channel clash. Changing channel on Sky routers is pretty easy. 2) Do you have microfilters on all other phone equipment? 3) If the wired connection test was rubbish, it could be your telephone wiring. It the router plugged onto the main phone socket or a subsocket? If you can find the main socket and take the front cover off, you'll see the test socket. Plug your router into that - if it improves speed then you probably need to look at the wiring. (google: broadband bell wire)

The next person who says, "oh, but 75% of the electorate didn't vote for this government" I am going to hold down and force-feed every remaining election pamphlet in my recycling bin. And then beat them round the head with the bin itself.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just wish they would auction the 'Ed stone off > for charity - you could build a new hospital with > the proceeds of that sale, I think! Apparently it cost ?30k to make.

Stag dos: invite the kiddies or not?

We got one last year, as they were the only ones who could provide us a sofa to fit our room. They are great and the design is really really versatile. We have an L-shaped sofa with a chaise-type side - no one else came close to what we wanted. One tip would be to not buy the softer seat bases. If you go up to Uxbridge to try them out, they seem very firm to sit, but they do soften up after a couple of months. We went with the soft bases and they are a little too soft now after a year. Putting them together is easy - in fact, it's like a huge jigsaw puzzle! No glue, no nails, no screws. Getting the cover on it worth taking time over to ensure you've stretched it evenly. Putting the seats together is the hardest part, but again getting the firmer seats will probably make that easier. After you've had a good look around their website I'd really recommend a trip to Uxbridge, as they have giant swatches of the cloths and spreading those out over sofas really gave us a good idea of what worked for us and what didn't.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Meanwhile Johnson returning to parliament leaves a vacancy for London mayor soon... and I hear the > Tories are pinning their hopes on their exciting new face... Sol Campbell. Sol Campbell??!! To be fair, Labour have been considering Eddie Izzard.