Carter

You want both barrels? Tell you what, Huguenot - you assume I am a right wing gun nut who will happily shoot children simply because I own a shotgun, and I'll assume you are a sad, middle-aged hanger-on living in Singapore who distracts himself from the piss-poor beer and child prostitutes just enough to comment on a South-East London-centric forum like the creepy uncle who you cannot get rid of from the party. Deal? Ooooh, this is fun.

Wow, a genuine 'guns don't kill people' idiot right in out own back yard. Absolutely. I, in th UK, am not allowed to own a handgun in my bedside cabinet. I am, however, allowed, to keep my shotgun in the safe subject to all UK laws. The arguement is whether you would. Yes, I would. Therefore MAXXI is a twat. As to this -: The Swiss have no need to burgle as they are as happy as Larry with their Nazi gold stashes and lie of beds made entirely of laundered dictator cash. I am utterrly speechless.

In fact, there is a beatitful simplicity of law -: don't invade, don't get shot. Plus, I would suppose that none of you have the means anyway. I.E. - guns in the house. If we were an armed society such as the Swiss then this would be a better question.

And there you go - beautiful compartmentilism. If you wish to own a gun = psychopath. Bugger the idea that you might be good at clay shooting and win the odd event. That you might enjoy shooting. And so that is why I "choose" to own a gun. Because I enjoy it, and happen to be fairly handy with it. It's kept in a wall, and floor drill mounted, hardended safe. Ammunition is kept in a seperate internal safe. The mechanics do not kill people. As said before, if someone invaded - I would, without question.

Not fleeing the country - returning. Not quite ready to flee yet. Astana to Manchester yesterday, Manchester to London today (with hangover). Having now watched the trailer - thanks, Mick Mac - I shall have to get a copy in this weekend to watch.

I really have to watch this bloody film. Ah well, plane to catch.

Now THAT is cool. Like it lots.

Again, I'm assuming we are delving back into that film again, or else I've not got a clue. I really must get around to watching it. Or the forum might tip me over the edge and be responsible for me going on a rampage and you wouldn't want that on your collective consciousness now, would you?

I do have a licensed shotgun in the flat. And, yes, I would, if I could get it out of the safe in time.

Is it a line from the film? I've never actually watched it myself.

@Mick Mac Bothering you? I wasn't aware I was. What an odd thing to say...

Over the last couple of months I became a victim of a clever Eastern European scam while out shopping. Simply dropping into Sainsburys for a bit of shopping has turned out to be quite traumatic. Don't be naive enough to think it couldn't happen to you or your friends. Here's how the scam works: Two seriously good-looking voluptuous 20-21 year-old girls come over to your car as you are packing your shopping into the boot. They both start cleaning your windscreen, their breasts almost falling out Of their skimpy T-shirts. When you thank them and offer them a tip, they'll say 'No' and instead ask you for a lift to another supermarket store, in my case, Tesco Express in Peckham. You agree and they both get in the back seat. On the way, they start undressing, and both get completely naked. Then, when you pull over to remonstrate, one of them climbs over into the front seat and starts crawling all over your lap, kissing you, touching you intimately, and thrusting herself against you, while the other one steals your wallet! I had my wallet stolen on July 4th, 9th & 10th, twice on the 15th, again on 17th, 20th, 24th, and 29th. Also on August 1st, 4th, 6th, and 10th. Hopefully again this weekend. P.S. Aldi have wallets on sale for ?1.99 each but Lidl's are ?1.75 and look better.

An apology. Having read and watched interviews with the atheletes after their various successes highlighting the team spirit within the British camp with different disciplines supporting each other in their events, I would humbley like to withdraw my previous comments about Team GB. Whilst I did argue against the idea of Team GB, I certainly cannot argue against the results and achievements. Congratulations to all. To all those on this forum I may of annoyed or pissed off - sorry. C.

As a man that failed my first All-Arms Parachute course - No. I passed my second. Inane News? That makes you .... a sellout. Individual acheivement is better than strength.

Pathetic - AC. Attack the man - not the arguement. Playground stuff.

Yep, absolutely. You can be beatan by a bloody bat enough times to eventually say "enough". "I am not Team GB. This is my achivement." Apologies for spelling. I am out and about. The bar I am in is showing the basketball. Again, Team GB. Shameful.

I am currenty watching the Womens Football. The female commentator consistently refers to "Team GB" - not the Great Britain Womens Football Team. It sounds like a soviet collective. They are gathering years of individual effort, across numurous sports, into the all-encompassing. "Team GB" are currently losing the football - as opposed to "Team GB" won the cycling, and the rowing, and the shooting. This disregards the many years of training, hardship, fund removal, and sheer bloody-mindedness of the individuals who don't have money funnelled into the "chosen few" who are granted funds. Two headlines from the BBC -: Pendleton wins Kerin gold for Team GB Team GB defends mens pursuit Pendleton won the gold for _her_. Nobody else. And damn well done. "Team GB" did _not_ defend the Mens Pursuit. The individuals did. And, again, damn well done. Katheine Grainger - Gold after 16 years. Gemma Gibbons - Silver after 12 years. Karina Bryant - Bronze after 16 years. These people have devoted their entire lives in the pursuit of their goals, and so should not be wrapped in the "Team GB" label attached to these games. To me its belittling, condesending and shameful. Edit - what is wrong with calling oneself "British"?

Congratulations to Zoe Smith from Greenwich, who although only finished 12th in her class in the weightlifting, broke the current British record today getting there. Damn well done.

But she wasn't drunk. Overdramatic and brain-washed, yes. Drunk - no. Hipster chaps. Very wide buggy. Extremely smug.

We have a thread that deals with the little things that cause us rage. How about a ranty thread that causes us to wish those to caused it to swing from lamp posts? Rant #1 So, we are sat outside the EDT this afternoon. My better half smokes - me, no. I don't give a shit. She lights up. A small plume of smoke emerges, and disipates in seconds on the wind. 20 feet away, we have the faux coughs from a couple, hand waving and , I shit you not, covering the face of their offspring. We are obviously causing genocide. Not three feet away from the very same pram is an idleing 185 bus with its exhaust pumping cardom monoxide at the perfect pram height for direct inhalation. It sat there for at least 2 minutes. So. I proposed an experiment, what with me being an Qualified Engineeer and all. I said to give me her offspring in a sealed garage where the better half smoked consistently for 20 minutes, and then we run a bus for 20 minutes. Then we can find out which one kills first. She was very abusive.

Will Foxton's be detailing the closest needle exchange in their listings? Think of the house prices!!! Think of the KIDDIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tax his land. Tax his bed. Tax the table at which he's fed. Tax his work. Tax his pay. He works for peanuts anyway! Tax his cow. Tax his goat. Tax his pants. Tax his coat. Tax his tobacco. Tax his drink. Tax him if he tries to think. Tax his car. Tax his gas. Find other ways to tax his ass. Tax all he has then let him know That you won't be done till he has no dough. Tax the power that he needs. Tax the very air he breathes. When he screams and hollers, then tax him some more. Tax him till he's good and sore. Then tax his coffin. Tax his grave. Tax the earth in which he's laid. When he's gone, do not relax. It's time to apply the inheritance tax.

So I am genuinely confused as to why not just write that into the original 1946 Act, or indeed any of the amemdments?

Actually, the better half (her being a contract lawyer) thinks that nothing changed in regard to the ownership after reading the 1946 Act. Provision 1 thus -: (1) On the appointed day ? (a) the whole of the existing capital stock of the Bank (hereinafter referred to as ?Bank stock?) shall, by virtue of this section, be transferred, free of all trusts, liabilities and incumbrances, to such person as the Treasury may by order nominate,(3) to be held by that person on behalf of the Treasury; ... However, further reading down reveals Provison 8 -: 8. The Government stock issued in substitution for any Bank stock shall be held in the same rights and on the same trusts and subject to the same powers, privileges, provisions, charges, restraints and liabilities as those in, on or subject to which the Bank stock was held immediately before the appointed day, and so as to give effect to and not revoke any deed, will, order, mandate, notice or other instrument or testamentary or other disposition disposing of or affecting the Bank stock, and every such instrument or disposition shall take effect with reference to the whole or a proportionate part, as the case may be, of the substituted Government stock. So, her take is this...if the owners of the private bank stock were then nominated by the Treasury after the 1946 Act then nothing changed, and it still remains a private bank. Especially if the original bank stock was held in trusts or wills etc. I think purely on the 1946 Act the ownership of the BoE still remains a little murky, not that I want to give New Nexus any more ammunition.

Or... Considering how tight things are right now for some, the market for ice-cream at half seven in the evening in January at -2 degrees is not ideal selling conditions but even a couple of sales for the guy means fighting off the bailiffs for a couple of weeks?