civilservant

And for the record, I WILL (with extreme kindness, of course) chase any cat in MY garden if it's threatening MY squirrels or MY birds

For goodness sake, we've got a whole thread full of lost cats. Cats seem to be important to ED. As important as buggies and entitled parents. No one in ED - as far as we know - was molested by Jimmy Savile, yet we discuss Mr Savile's activities on the Forum (and some of us even came to his defence in the Drawing Room.) Of course we can discuss cruelty to cats (or any other beast) on the Forum, whether it happens in ED or as far away as Putney.

There are two classes of posters on the Forum - those who are allowed to trawl (or do I mean troll?) all over it with inanities, often at midnight, and the rest of us. The latter group includes tree-huggers, cat/dog owners, buggy-pushers, in other words, your usual ED riff-raff. Then there's the Drawing Room, which is a sacred space. Enter at your peril, and do not on any account dare to joke therein. But that's rather unfortunate, as many of the contributions in there are often more LOL than even Salsaboy's jokes.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now that's inanity. True - a master class in inanity

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe some people need 'reminding' that they don't > speak for everybody. Including yourself of course, maxxi? This thread is about our throwaway culture and the need for instant gratification at any cost

Don't fret Molly It's not set to be wet in London until nearly midnight.

I dream of one day having a chequerboard-tiled hallway in the grand style! see for example http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/quick-history-checkerboard-flo-136019

So that the forum can go back to its true business of utterly inane news threads and threads about watching threads about wool? Should pet owners be more responsible? Yes. And should the Forum keep reminding them to continue to be responsible? Yes

... so which one is he?

so the moral is - yes, you can. But only if you are an old Irishman or an illegal immigrant Is that it?

Help-Ma-Boab Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had a hedgehog in our garden as a kid. Loved > that wee guy. Called him Sandy. > So sad that our own kids don't get to see/love/name hedgehogs :0(

Wheelchairs have (and deserve) priority in London. See TfL website http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround "All London bus routes are served by low-floor, wheelchair-accessible, buses which means that they are designed to provide easy access and onboard space, specifically for wheelchair users and buggies. If you get on a bus with a buggy, and the wheelchair space is available, please feel free to use it. If a wheelchair user wants to board the bus, however, you might be asked to fold your buggy up or move it to another part of the bus. Wheelchair users have priority over anyone else in this area because it is the only place for wheelchairs to travel safely. Please remember that, for safety reasons and general passenger comfort, buggies cannot be left in the middle of the bus. As a buggy user, you should be able to board any low-floor bus, unless the driver thinks that it is too crowded for you to travel safely. You will only be refused entry to board a bus if it is really necessary. Single buggies should be wheeled through the doors at the front of the bus towards the wheelchair area. If a single buggy is too wide to fit through the doors and down the aisle, it must be folded up. If you are using a double buggy, it's fine for you to get on the bus at the back exit doors, but please check with the driver first."

Agree that rudeness is never ok. But must say that though service might be patchy, it's still better than the place on the Rye (which is dirty, has squalid toilets and dishes up appalling food. Are those butties actually edible?). A pity, given its excellent building and location.

Actually I don't think it is a bad business decision. Cafes cater for people of all ages and the buying power of mums with babies/prams is limited compared to that of other patrons. If the Gardens becomes known as a baby-free zone, that would be attractive to all the people who regularly complain on here about having to share their space with babies. Speaking as a one-time baby sling user who graduated to a fold-up Maclaren, I think that London Mix makes a valid point about thinking about how one's choices impact on the rest of society, including cafe owenrs

A vote FOR the Gardens - they are older-child-friendly and also dog-friendly. Buggy-friendly unfortunately doesn't make economic sense - see what's happened to the Mag and to the Blue Mountain Cafe

There's never any suggestion that Reacher has disappeared from bureaucratic databases - all too often his old army buddies (and enemies) know where to find him. And he calls on his old army records when he needs to prove his bona fides. But he has a tiny carbon footprint. Plus he's an avowed feminist. A very appealing update of the ronin/Man with no Name archetype. I hope he finds whoever cast Tom Cruise in the role and terminates them with extreme prejudice!

There shouldn't be a problem with raising two issues in one appointment, but you'd only have a very short space of time in which to discuss both, and probably end up doing justice to neither. Also, the doctor wouldn't be expecting to discuss your son and so wouldn't have his notes to hand and would need to call them up etc. I'd suggest you book a double appointment - this is standard practice and the surgery should be able to accommodate you.

Thank you!

maritap Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's going on with this Jimmy Saville thing,why > have they waited till the man is dead to open the > can of worms > Hmmm I wonder what will be revealed They couldn't do anything while he was alive, could they? While alive, Mr Savile maintained the fiction that he was an honourable man through heavy recourse to our liberal laws on libel and slander.

hyphens! I wonder if people would be quite as keen about them if they knew why they arose. Essentially, hyphens originally denoted that a man had married a woman from a posher family than his own i.e. committed hypergamy. If a Mr Smith married above his station, say to a Miss Jones, then he would take her name and they would become Mr and Mrs Smith-Jones (or even Mr and Mrs Jones). In my own experience, many of the more modern examples of hyphenation arise because people need to keep track of which of their partners was responsible for helping to produce which sprog...

Thanks, Fly! do keep us updated

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Re surnames| don't take your husbands but keep > your dad's - right on sisters well, I share my dad's genes, don't I, so obvs it makes more sense New Girl's post (i.e. pleading non-englishness etc) triggers the thought that most other cultures don't expect women to take their husband's name upon marriage. Not even in Muslim countries. It seems to be an English practice that's been exported worldwide.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Out of interest I talked to my mum about this and > she confirmed ... I agree with quids. AM, I've noticed that although old feminists like me persist with our 'maiden' names, many younger women in this country seem to be reverting to the practice of taking their husband's name. New Girl's contribution seems to be typical of a certain kind of post-feminism. As for which side of the kerb etc, I had no idea that there was a right side and a wrong side for men to walk on. I routinely walk on the road-side of the pavement when walking with young children, but that's for traffic safety reasons rather than the fear that they might be hit by the contents of a full ED chamber-pot!

Didn't Pascal say pretty much the same thing? Out of the mouths of...

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I'm walking on a footpath and a woman is > walking towards me, I am in the habit of moving to > the roadside of the path as I think for some > strange reason it is good manners. I must have > been brainwashed. Interesting! What happens if a man is walking towards you? For myself, if I'm walking on a footpath and any person is walking towards me, I am in the habit of moving to the roadside of the path as I think for some strange reason it is good manners. I also hold doors open for men, the poor dears. As for lady/woman, I'm largely indifferent, although there are times when I am moved to think 'what a prat' when addressed as 'lady'.