DJKillaQueen

What are you talking about KK? I may have a different style of debate to you but that's what you get in an open debate. If you then instead of simply responding to the point being made, personally attack someone by calling them aggressive - when they are no such thing then that is YOUR problem.....not mine. In fact by that attitude the only person being agressive is YOU. Now W**F...I think ladymuck would like a pair of those glasses too >:D<. *runs to the safety of the drawing room*

How many days are there between each theft Geeza?

LOL.......we might have to organise a forum jubbly meetup just for you Loz ;-)

Do let us know if it is a triumph for you!

lol....but just because some can't look at a low cut neckline without thinking of sex doesn't make it innapropriate. Appropriateness depends on the job/ business and where a strict dress code is required (because of a need for a 'uniform' image) companies use uniforms. A low cut top with a nice jacket and skirt/ trousers can look as smart as any outfit...but just because a women has sizeable cleavage over another shouldn't deter from the right for both of them to dress in similar outfits. DJK - you seem to have an attacking style in basic discussion, who mentioned nuns, I won't be exchanging if you're going to try and just score points. Another way of saying you can't debate if someone challenges your view. You clearly do confuse sex and dress code as your comments show. You only think a low cut top unacceptable because you associate it with sex and the sex industry. The woman's breasts are not falling out - she's wearing a bra. You are embellishing your view of her cleavage when in reality all she is guilty of is wearing a low cut top. Of course you are going to be challenged in that view. It's a public forum.

Sex is on every programme on TV, OK for workplace too ?? See now you are confusing sex with dress code which is the same BS lawyers come out with in rape trials. What you are saying is that because a woman has cleavage and wears a low cut top she's asking for sex...

They are not hanging out at all then. What you are areally saying is that how dare a woman have large cleavage and if she does she should dress like a nun...and by the way they would still be just as prominent.

I find it totally hypocritical that in a world where women often only get attention if they are good looking and/or sexy and are used to sell everything, that the moment some women empower themselves (usually only to feel good about themselves and not to seduce anybody), it's frowned upon. Men only have themselves to blame if they can't handle a bit of female flesh showing, because after all that IS all that is showing. Get a grip guys.

So she comes to work topless then?

Just wax the damn thing lol

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Next meeting I have I?m going to unbutton the top > three buttons of my shirt as an experiment to see > if it gives me a psychological advantage over > whomsoever of the other meetingeees choose to > stare. > > I got a chest hair a few months back so I?m pretty > confident I can pull it off. It'll certainly attract some guys to you ...but don't worry, your secret is safe with us! ;-)

Yeah buns don't go senile...they just droop.....!

Home made fudge and fajitas will be coming too!

xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx Does that make sense?

Yep and try this one xx@$?*^%@@xx ;-) xxx

I had a fabulous time spectating and meeting so many people from the forum. Well done to everyone that was brave enough to run!

Just a quick Q - how long is the warm up beforehand?

Can't think why a painting by a reknowned impressionist painter was censored lol....wondering if a Brazillian would have made a difference because I can photoshop >:D

Is this what you mean Rosie? The great masterpiece by Courbet as seen in the Musee D'Orsay Paris http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/5/a/6/b/600_16643147.jpeg

150 Ladyboy

I have lots of ideas Jeremy and think many of them could work but speaking of work, I have to go and do some lol so will return later to post them :).

It would be insane to cap house prices but rents can be capped....many european countries like France do just that, with the local authority setting the rate and regulating annual increases. Rent capping would not affect those who are buying a house as a home for example, only those buying to rent. The aim (along with other measures) would be to slow the rate at which house prices rise in the future. One of the reasons why 100% mortgages came about is precisely because so many people don't have inheritted money or parental help to supply a deposit. When you look at the range of products and the timeline at which they came about, it becomes blatently obvious that the mortgage industry knows that housing has become increasingly unaffordable for growing numbers of people. But instead of letting natural market forces in turn keep prices within range, they just found ways to lend people greater and greater sums of money with increasing risk of default (along with easy 'no capital investment required' ways of acquiring second and third properties) .....where does it all stop? At the end of the day, no-one owns anything until the mortgage is paid off - the house belongs to the bank. Of course, there is an arguement to say, why do we all have to aspire to be homeowners? But for many families, cramped in unsuitably small accomodation, buying seems to be their only option of having a suitable home. This is true within the social housing sector where there is a distinct shortage of family homes, with many families crammed into flats with very small rooms (room size aso being an issue with new builds). There is suitable accomodation in the private sector of course but rents are higher and there is a lack of security for tenants, compared to the security of tenure afforded by social housing (where rents are controlled by government legislation).

I also have no problem with housing benefit for the unemployed etc. What I do have a problem with is taxpayers subsidisng one third of wages because we have an over-inflated housing market, a market that has not been subject to the natural impacts of market conditions, but has been kept artificially bouyant by banks and mortgage lenders (the moment first time buyers began to begin to be priced out) by the creation of ludicrous products like self certified mortgages and part buy part rent and indeed buy-to-let - where most investers are paying interest only and nothing back on the capital loan - something the FSA is now seeking to change. The rate at which house prices and rents have risen over the last 30 years is completely ridiculous. No other sector has seen anything like that growth - not even close. No wonder the banks finally got their fingers burned. But it's us (including those that don't own and have no hope of ever owning thier own home) who are paying for it now. Incidently the HB bill has more than doubled over that period too - so no suprise there. Hopefully the changes that the FSA are seeking to bring about will help the rate of growth to slow to more sensible rates - so that housing returns to being a long term investment, and over time salaries will have a chance to close the gap - and the reliance on HB reduce. We spend ?20.8 billion on HB. That is tax payers money being used to pay private landlords mortgages. The coming blanket cap on HB (as there already in a capping system linked to average LOCAL rents) will only make a dent in that bill. As I've stated before, I would prefer a system that caps rents in the private sector. I think that would be a far more effective way to cut the HB bill and would in turn require buy-to-let investors to have some kind of capital investment in the property compared to at the moment where in most cases (not all as I know some investors have been burned) there is little or no risk or investment required, the bank loan is the only investment with the payments paid off by the rental income - an easy way to make money (not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with that) but it should not be made at the expense of tax payers. Raising the minumum wage would also help reduce the benefits bill. We have a shortage of affordable rental accommodation. Chucking HB at the market is the not the way to deal with that. According to official figures, only 24% of the country's welfare bill is spent on adults of working age. 60% of the bill is spent on the over 60's, and that is set to rise as we live longer and less people reach retirement age with no pension plan. No government has really got into it yet but raising the retirement age is only the start of what's to come. Property investment has become the pension scheme for many people so any adjustments or regulation of that market has to also address why the role of pension schemes is diminishing. In the private sector 62.9% of workers don't have a pension plan compared to the generous pension plans that 85% of public sector workers pay into and benefit from on retirement. At present benefits are 24.6% of GDP (compared to the European average of 26.9%).

In the end the tactical misjudgement that was Pearl Harbor, saved the world. Maybe yes, but in order to invade the island nations to her south, and secure their oil fields, Japan had to nullify the American fleet at Pearl Harbour. The only misjudgements were in attacking when the aircraft carriers were at sea so they didn't get the entire fleet and in thinking America's mainland was too far away to effectively fight back.

No it wouldn't..... a raise in minimum wage would save the country millions in top up benefits (which then really could be directed to those more in need). It's not difficult to work out what a single person, more or less, basically needs to live on. That's why we then have child benefits and child tax credits to take children and the cost of them into account as a seperate factor and indeed maybe there's an argument for means testing child benefit and raising it for those most in need. In London, because of the massive HB bill there could be a further arguement for weighting to help reduce the HB bill, although I agree it wouldn't actually make the recipient any better/ worse off...but it would make the tax payer better off. Just because the one size fits all isn't a totally accurate measure of living costs doesn't justify not raising minimum wage to a living level...which according to various poverty action groups and the Labour Force Survey (nothing to do with the Labour party btw lol) needs to be ?7 per hour or thereabouts. Incidently beer in a pub is a lot more expensive here than in my home town of Liverpool where the aeverage price for a pint is ?2.30 compared to ?3.30 - ?4 in London. That's a different of 30% plus.