*Bob*

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah Australia full of people that have some > strange unfounded notion that England is full of > self-righteous, indignant aresholes. Have you been a 'Walkabout', Brendan? Australia's finest.. on tour.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- As I have said in the past, the middle > classes always have the louder.. > voices Always? Mrs Robinson? Soul-free expensive tat for the most part, but each to their own. Australia? Massively overrated.. especially by Australians. Nice place though, assuming you live in the 0.0001% of it that isn't 'cowboy town' and don't mind not having anything of interest within, say, a thousand miles.

Just to save anyone else the bother...

More results:

I took the test - here are my results.

I'm here..

Sherwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As per Blackadder, Mrs Robinson = Feeble > collection of stocking-fillers IMHO. Crikey.. Christmas at your place must be an eye-opener, present-wise.

In an effort to up the ante and sustain her pointless argument, Louisa overshot her bolt 'What tastes best' is a completely different argument to what 'value for money', or 'affordability'. Personally (not having remembered the prices) I thought Greggs would cost less and EDD would cost more. I bet Greggs make more profit per unit sold than the EDD do on theirs.

What's the price difference?

What did they 'do' last year? ?40m? What if everyone promises to pledge double their usual amount tonight, on the condition that they skip the bloody thing next year? Or just put something - and not wishing to be contraversial here - put something funny on? Now that would be a relief. Because as it stands there are more laughs in The Deer Hunter.

It's cheered me up that he's not presenting it any more. I think if (IF) I sat and watched all (fifty-eight hours) of it and put a pound in a jar every time I genuinely laughed, a fiver would more than cover it. Unfortunately I wouldn't get past the first three minutes. As soon as I hear a mention of an upcoming comedy 'spectacular' featuring the cast of Eastenders and BBC newsreaders I'll be off to put my head in the oven. And my oven's electric, so that's going to HURT.

It would help if there was something funny in it.

I think I accused her of being unwilling to watch anything which might be 'too demanding'. Little does she know that after the Red Riding incident and she'd sloped off to bed, I turned over and watched Overboard, with Goldie Hawn.

We started to watch it, but Mrs *Bob* fell asleep after ten minutes, leading to a minor altercation about 'her' and 'my' choices of recording currently backed-up on the Humax. 'my' = subtitled films I'll never watch, heavygoing dramas, more films I've already seen a thousand times 'her' = Crimewatch, real-life medical drama, plus An Officer and a Gentleman I think we'll just have to split up. I'll certainly never see Red Riding otherwise.

It's like the United Nations round there.

Looks like you're one of us, Mark. Welcome.

Of course this doesn't change the fact that at least a quarter of the population will vote a particular way on the grounds that someone 'has a kind face' or the like..

I found an old 'who should I vote for' questionnaire thing for the 2005 GE. Like the mayoral one, I find these things really useful and interesting to do. They're over-simplified, obviously (this one is aimed at people at school); but have you tried to distill key policy from the websites of the main three political parties? It's like pulling teeth. Seriously, you'd be forgiven for thinking they didn't want you know. Anyway, here are my results on 2005 policy, honest answers all. I wonder if anything will have changed at the next GE.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Edited to say: Bob, sorry, *Bob*, I think you can > have subsidence without being underpinned. Mine > hasn't been underpinned but all the correspondence > from the insurance guys refers to subsidence. Fairy nuff. I suppose 'underpinning' is a bit specific.. any prior insurance claim relating structural movement would probably tick your subsidence box. The daft thing is that if you'd have just done the work yourself, (or rather, as it sounds just ignored it if it was mainly cosmetic) rather than claimed, the box would remain unticked. It's all about insurance really, not about your house. In practice what this means is that your house can be leaning over at a 45 degree angle, but as long as insurance work hasn't been carried out on it as a result of a claim and the bank has surveyed and is willing to lend, then 'it hasn't subsided'.

It is a bit confusing, but unless either you know the house has been underpinned in the past, or if you've had a survey which says it needs underpinning right away, then for insurance purposes and with regards to what you tick on insurance application, your house 'hasn't subsided'. All houses move, but movement isn't subsidence.

Back to the issue of the impending GE: When the mayoral election was afoot, someone posted a link to an online twenty questions-type multiple-choice survey which gave you the name of the candidate you ought to be voting for according to the answers you gave. Is there similar thing knocking about with regards to a general election?

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Bob" "Bob" "Bob" please M8.....I doubt if there > is a resident in Newham who believes those > figures, I don't need to elaborate as I can't > actually "proove" those percentages are wrong, but > if one travels thru' all parts of Newham I'm sure > you would not reach that conclusion. Don't tell me? Twenty to a room? No passports? The white population are probably older, less visible and therefore a drive through Newham won't give you the real picture. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I admit that I do sometimes feel frustrated when > some people don't make more of an effort to > integrate with the local community, but the same > accusation could be made towards most British > ex-pats (or plenty of Brits at home to be > honest). This is pretty fair. The irony is that (reading various posts) I reckon Tony has probably made more of an effort to integrate (practically, on a day-to-day basis, ie.. for real and not just 'in principle') with an ethnically diverse population than half the people preparing right now to queue-up and denounce him as some kind of send-em-home pointy-hatted loon.

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How do you honestly think most of the remaining > few (who had now become the clear minority in the > birthplace of Generations of their antecedents) > would feel? "Newham is the most ethnically diverse district in the country, with no particular ethnic group dominating (39% of the population is White, 38% is Asian, and 22% is Black)"

charliecharlie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you ever find that there are certain things > that you just can not resist buying, even though > you know you > CATEGORICALLY DO NOT NEED another one???

If you really love London Town and all it has to offer, then you need to acknowledge the people who handed it to you on a platter: the waves of transient workers residing in London 'because it suited' (over the last couple of thousand years) - and still do. And seeing as the Liberals haven't been in power for nearly a century, I'm assuming that (under the stewardship of mainly the Tories, with a little bit of Labour) our fair City must have reached the peak of perfection? Am I right?