LadyDeliah

My bunting's up :-)

Lol, that's brightened up my day :-)

...and their corporate paymasters wouldn't let them.

Sorry, that's not correct. Sticking a sticker on a wall or phone box constitutes criminal damage, because it takes effort to remove. There was even a case where water soluable drawings were considered to be criminal damage: Hardman v Chief Constable for Avon and Somerset (1986) Bristol Crown Ct Llewellyn-Jones J and Justices - Held: The local authority incurred expense and inconvenience to put matters right. Therefore, the defendants had caused criminal damage.

Leaving the lock there could technically be criminal damage as anything that takes some effort to remedy in relation to property can be classed as criminal damage.

Maybe mine are just slow or having their nuts cut off early chilled them out then.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So when cats kill the local birdlife cat owners > say 'that's just nature'. But when cats beat each > other up then we must step in and stop nature > taking its course? My cats have bells on their collars so no dead birds or rodents on my doorstep :-)

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "CCTV is no solution. Police patrolling is an > actual deterrent." > > Really? I take it that you've never actually been > a thief? > > May I give you absolute assurance that during my > teenage years a policeman was a target, not a > deterrent. > > The idea that a street corner policeman would > actually turn up sufficiently quickly to tackle my > petty larceny is laughable. You never fail to suprise me Hugo!

Wow that's pretty scary. What a nutter!

This is class too:

My son used to do parkour type stuff, running up walls, backflips and mad ariel kicks. Just saw this and thought of him. Amazing stuff:

I'm emergent service worker class aparently!

Why?

Just a thought but Lousia if your so against the anti-social spreading of noxious substances, I suggest you get rid of your car and walk or cycle instead.

I have a pretty serious back injury which resulted in a cracked and compacted lumbar vertebrae. I've had loads if Physio and manage it by keeping my core muscles really strong. When I slide and stop doing the exercises the pain becomes excruciating again and I need to go back on pain killers. The exercises I find most effective are crunches and twist crunches along with side and gentle back exercises. I did try massage and acupuncture in the past but it didn't help at all. I was told in 2001 that if I carried on doing Taekwondo and circuits etc I had a high chance of ending up in a wheelchair and was booked in for spinal surgery but 12 years later and without the surgery I'm still doing a lot of sport. I'd definitely recommend lots if Physio over pretty much anything else.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyine seen 'Avon Calling' (cert. 18)? > > I'll never look at a pot of rouge in the same way > again.. Shudder.. No, but it sounds like the stuff of nightmares.

All of this stuff has got me really worried. Police waste their time looking for knives and guns, but any psycho with mass murder on their mind will be able to slip through the most hi tech net and do murder by moisturiser. We need a petition about it.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't this discussion really about taboos? > > The threat of deadly makeup and homicidal leather > jackets may well be technically 'true' but the > risk is so vanishingly small that there has never > been a documented case to support these ornate > theories. > > It's certainly not big enough to justify the > visceral overreaction of some individuals to such > 'gross' women. > > So isn't this protest really about 'gross' women > upsetting the natural order and threatening the > very fabric of society? > > The fact that the protestors on this thread > regularly find themselves on other threads voicing > traditionalist, conservative, reactionary opinions > would seem to support this? > > The challenge with public makeup is that it > reveals the design and application behind a > woman's outward appearance. It's a statement of > independence - a rejection of the idea that women > are somehow naturally demure, feminine and > retiring 'pretty little things' in favour of more > complex motivations and machinations. > > So these protestations are perhaps the last gasp > of Victorian traditionalists resentful of female > equality? > > For 'gross women putting on makeup in public' > instead read 'women should know their place'. 10/10 Totally agree

She could probably do with a good rumble. Might remove the scowl!

I deleted my Facebook profile. Too many uncompromising photos and waaaay too much personal information out there with too little security control for my liking.

IMO hatred of petty things such as publicly applying make-up inversely proportionate to sexual activity :-)

The world service?

A point made in the Guardian link says it all. If the stay at home mum wants a tax allowance for childcare she doesn't use, does she also want tax allowances for trade tools & materials she similarly doesn't use? It makes no sense. If stay at hone mums want financial recognition for the work they do in bringing up their kids, they should say so, instead of demanding a nonsensical tax allowance. That I'd back, if it was equal for all stay at home parents and not linked to tax and income.

Smiler, this wasn't about childcare for a couple where both are working. Of course people in that position should get the breaks. It's someone who is not working out of choice and whose husband is in a well paid profession, expecting others to subsidise childcare costs despite her not needing childcare.

Er, didn't intend to kill the thread. A bit too close to the bone then??