StraferJack

I've seen a couple of people mention it's a spoof by the Yes Men

* knock knock * "I'm on the phone mum.. what's that? Umm... yeah cheese and ham please.."

all of the above probably, as well as the price is probably too high We have just had a number of agents around to price up our flat and all of them suggested a price I considered too high I've put it on lower than that, but I'm still not optimistic

I popped in there a few weeks ago for the first time in ages since I moved away from there and it was noticeably quieter at a time when I expected it to be busy Shame - they were great shopkeepers and always went out of their way to help me if they didn't have something in stock. Best of luck to them

good point, well made Jeremy more about the man himself

Brutally honest But healthy?

Florence and the machines have been getting a lot of AirPlay recently

I can't believe I post a story, highlighting the lunacy of yet another "AND NBOW THEY ARE BANNING THIS!!!" headline, showing how the whole story is NOT TRUE and some people are responding as if it is true I give up

People seem to be missing the point - it's a non-story, dressing up something to have a nother pop at a supposed "PC gone mad" no-one is banning anything, the BBC continue to use BC and AD and noone has suggested it's offending any other religions But then again I'm a celsius man, nor a farenheit guy, so maybe I would say that. I'm also quite keen on decimal and wouldn't want to go back to pounds, shillings and pence. Or groats

Some people think the mail is just another paper with it's own slant on things, just like any other paper Those people are incorrect

Tedious cut and paste shite At least credit your sources Or have Honesty and manners gone the same way as common sense?

Latest example of nutters spreading lies Anti Christian BBC at it. Again

@applespider - meant to be tongue in cheek, I don't mean to frighten. I have often recounted the naked fear I felt on first going to a forum drinks. But the regulars (changing as they are) ARE inclusive - but it still needs that bit of fearlessness on behalf of the newcomer. @maxxi - hush! didn't you make the last drinks? That makes you a veteran.. you need to man up and be there for people fella!

What a bunch of wusses! Couldn't make it last night as mrs strafer went along but I remember in the old days people uses to ask any obvious candidates Still... Sorts wheat from chaff and all that

I agree buy to let is a significant distorter btw I don't believe renting is or should be a mugs game tho

Demand was driven not by cheap credit Demand was driven by people rejecting rented accomodation, primarily because it was " a mugs game". House prices go up so reliably anyone not buying and cashing in was considered simple. Cheap credit came along because that demand to buy houses was there. Another example of a win/win being nothing of the sort Supply and demand is petrol. People demand it, supply is finite but every increase in price is met with howls of protest. No such situation exists in housing. Price increases are, for the majority it seems, a good thing "simple" supply and demand it ain't

I think the beef they have is if the high-earner is earning directly from their taxes

How much do you want to pay them?

RSPCA has (as the name suggests) Royal approval, wheras the NSPCC doesn?t, for some odd reason And the NSPCC came into being decades after the SPCA Shows something not right with priorities

but would it? where can I see hoarding like this permanently up around London? Just so I can see a real life example, and be aware of the potential horrors?

but that makes it sound like the guy in the wood shop is The Big Winner, or at least at an advantage. Do you suppose they would be happy to swap positions? Do you suppose the guy in the wood shop would be so aggrieved? It's like those people who win the lottery - "all my numbers are up - I won 20 million!! Oh no wait - someone else had the same numbers, I only won 10 million.. goddammit!!" And people who clear 100k after tax, punching people in pubs because THEY feel hard done by?? Not a great look

I must be. Because I can't quite see how some people are saying "keeping the 50p rate is pure ideology and nothing more - it raises very little of any note " and at the same time say "announcing it's removal is also announcing cutting public services, sacking union workers " But I will restate - if retaining it serves no purpose other than political, I'd support it's removal. But it isn't JUST a tax on the rich if it provides an avenue to not cut a public service or keep "union" workers (whatever they might be in this case) Now you can argue which public services are required or not in general terms - but if you are going to use the current deficit, austerity measures and saying "we are all in this together" as a cloak to remove services you are ideologically opposed to, that's different And any argument which says the rich pay 100 times more than the poor (in the 200k v 13k a year argument) is just - well I don't know what it is actually. It's factual and truthful but misses the point by a million miles. Paying 100 times more in tax contributions than someone else means you are in a position to do so AND remain absolutely oblivious to the brutal cuts and rising food costs. You are still reaping the benefit of any hard work you perceive to be doing above and beyond someone working 60 hours a week for their 13k salary. Relax - enjoy life

Here is what I said about the 50p tax bracket "(here it should be noted that I?m open around the 50p tax bracket ? if it does raise the targetd 2ish billion then I can?t see a problem) " So I didn't explicitly state I would remove it if it didn't raise money but i think it's clear But as dc said earlier, if it wasn't raking in enough money this government would have removed it on day one

Mm. Of course noone can propose to dismantle the nhs. That would be suicide politically But surely the reason private firms appear better able to provide healthcare in your eyes is their ability to not have to deal with the volumes the nhs does, as well as being selective But it should also said there are areas where we agree - "rationing certain types of healthcare by making people pay a portion of the cost (IVF, tattoo removal, comemtic surgery, bariatric surgery for example) " I might not agree with all of the examples but taking some of the more elective procedures off the list is both a saving and doesn't require costly restructuring

" > Timster? SJ? DC? Loz's challenge seconded." I'm pretty sure I said earlier in this thread this very thing