????

matthew123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Watched it on telly and it was good football by > Liverpool, easily their best performance so far > this season. The Reds were quite composed and > stroked the ball about to good effect. I thought > West Ham were very poor defensively especially > that guy at left back. Jamie Carragher had a > stinker for Liverpool - and on this showing needs > to start looking over his shoulder as Agger will > soon be fit. > > Thought Ryan Babel impressed on the right flank, > and it was good to see him whip in the cross for > the winner. He clearly has a lot of talent and if > he is allowed to build his confidence might be a > crucial player this season in title hunt. > > It's Everton who are the School of Science.. (a la > Keef's preference of Everton vs West Ham than CL) Tomkins a very young defender exposed by possibly the best attacker in the world - looked poor? Well, maybe Matt. Caragher was once more shown to be a bit of a journeyman lucky to have been born in Liverpool I think. West Ham squad exposed if too many more injuries, Hines, great potential - Liverpool..need to sort out defense against set pieces

MM and BBW are partnering Brucie and Tarby in a golfing charidee event at a course near you soon folks

It's annoying living near a school agreed and anti-social parking by school runneds is a factor. Sun is out,,the park calls (and maybe the Herne)....only Liverpool to worry about.

3 pints of Stella at lunch

No I am not Sean, that's ridiculous 85% of my life to date has been childless but as someone memorably said on here - I do wish i was half the parent that i was was when i didn't have kids. I'm responding to a specific post that tickled me and sticking up for Fuschia. Inspite of what you might think i'm not in favour of anti-social behavviour on the road by anyone and kids are no excuse.

Anyone doing the lottery at Ayr? I've had a small EW on Zidane..27s

Haye gonna win? He's a bit shorter!

Annasfield Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We went in there late on last season and it > probably wasn't the most intelligent thing we've > ever done. Didn't get any hassle though. Don't go in The Village

True

Well said Texas. i also thibk it's absolutely hilarious for people without kids setting out how far a reasonable walking distance with a double buggy and a toddler is.....

It's like half of the houses in Chigwell...makes us feel at home

BBW can't do apostrophes FACT

I'm not trying to argue anything against you Steady, I'm just pointing out an inconsitency in the forum's approach on this in general not you personally - "Where are they now?" should perhaps have made that clearer.

nope...can't borrow anyone's ST for this one! Have a beer in the Boyleyn for me :)-D

Tt can be both, I think, but the s' always looks tidier than s's IMO

Steady Eddy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is not a crime to take photos that must be > realised, but when you look at the circumstances > as a whole, in this case, then this has to be > questioned what the actual purpose was. It is also > the right of the owner to have a say in who takes > photos of their property, therefore it works both > ways of the freedom to have a say and how someone > feels. > > I am a non-professional photographer that does it > as a hobby and love some of the building > architecture, so I would point out, as my personal > opinion that in this case it does not show to be > for arcitectual art purposes. That may be so but a few weeks ago on a thread about someone taking pictures of peoples' children many on here took a very different line..."don't be so precious about your sprogs", being the main one, where are they now when it's property?

You going eastwards today Anna?

mmmmmm...I thought questioning people for taking photos was a hideous attack on artistic freedom a few weeks back when it was children...property different I see....

[quote name=I'm not a maths whizz. When writing routines to price up DAROs in Amsterdam I had to ask someone what the dots meant in an equation. I think people started wondering, quite justifiably, what on earth I was doing there at that point!!] very good

I'm on early shift so just on my last Stella

Your fridge isn't the fridge of a dad Anna...well not the one he dreams of anyway. Beer Chocolate Primula cheese Absolut Vodka in the freezer compartment and champagne just in case the grandparents take the kids away for the weekend

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > !!!! > > I almost agree with ????. > > I'd add three supplementaries: > > [1] Do you have a target retirement date? > > [2] Do you want to be debt-free by that date? > > [3] How risk adverse are you to not achieving [1] > and [2]? > > > And now back on topic... > > For ????: > > You've opened the can of worms of interest rate > and inflation differentials - a subject for > another thread. > > Based on your quoted 4% differential do you think > that the current base rate would be 3.25% or 6.5% > without the current aggresive market manipulation? Apologies for tardy response...but it's all relative, the 4% differential isn't comparable. 4% differential in a world of 12% inflation is minor (a 1/3) in a world of 2% inflation that equates to a base rate on 2.7ish%

He's got that catholic - woman as saviour shite going on in his head too..are you a left footer BBW?

Actually, that removes him from being a catholic priest but maybe a mullah or something...needs to work on the swearing though

He's actually a bit of a puritan our BBW. Not a big fan of the sauce, we know he disapproves of gambling....I think he's considering the priesthood...ok, smokes a bit of weed but that has some spiritual qualities.