*Bob*

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- It still isn't 100% > full proof, and I think most restaurants now warn > you before serving up undercooked ground mince. Which restaurants offer 100% foolproof food again? I missed that list. To quote from the ML menu and website: "OUR BURGERS ARE COOKED SLIGHTLY PINK, PLEASE INFORM YOUR BURGERETTE IF YOU PREFER YOUR MEAT WELL DONE"

Sounds like you need to actually read the document you posted properly. Specifically the bit where it explains how well-sourced meat going into burgers can be cooked perfectly safely and yet be pink in the middle - following a few simple guidelines. Bearing in mind burgers are the only thing ML does, they've probably got this covered.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not when your sat on the toilet or puking for > several days Will this feature in the review?

Just to manage your expectations here, Louisa, what we're talking about here is 'a burger and chips', which consists of 'a burger' served with 'chips'. It's a decent 'burger and chips' - i.e. decent meat, a bit of charring and tastiness on the outside and pinky in the middle (as opposed to the one you get, say, outside the football stadium from a mobile catering unit that costs ?3.50) but - at the end of the day - there's only really so much you can expect from a burger and chips. You eat it inside a venue with a good atmosphere, decent music and a nice decor vibe (if you like that sort of thing - which you won't). This is different to eating out of a polystyrene carton in the street. So, my advice - if you're planning on taking one home and picking over it whilst watching Goldenballs and then furnishing us with your inevitably tiresome 'value review' - my suggestion is "please don't". Go to Xoco instead.

I'm up for giving Xoco a try as well - the mixed menu could work with a mixed family group. That said, it was a graveyard there last night around the time we were eating. Empty restaurants do not entice, unfortunately. Meat Liquor was rammed.

'Did' Meat Liquor last night. Like the decor. Good music. Honest Burger probably edges it on the food but hey they're both decent burger and chips, you're only really talking + or - 5% of difference. Burger n chips, innit. Nice to actually have somewhere a bit more youthful on LL. Older kids will like it as a family eat as it's got a fun vibe (ours did) - though no entry with kids after 7pm I think?)

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Chuka > Sadiq > Jarvis > Lewis > Cooper My Corbyn-mad associates on other social media have called for for every single person on this fairly reasonable list of fairly reasonable people to be strung up on gibbets (metaphorically, and in some cases, actually) over the last few weeks and months. That's what Labour is up against internally at the moment.

Work's a great place to hide from home life as well, hides the cracks. Some of them are probably a little afraid of what 'too much quality time' might mean. (apparently, not that I've ever had a job as such, obvs).

So, Mick, the question you're asking - if you owned your own giant home, mortgage-free, had a huge sack of cash from a redundancy payout and a gargantuan pension: would you consider 'not' dragging yourself out of bed at 6.45am, trudging into work and spending two thirds of your waking life trying to please someone else in order to maintain your place on a corporate treadmill surrounded by people you would probably avoid in a pub? Let me just think about that one for a while.

Please supply other key details, Mick Size of redundancy package Value of house, assuming owned Other savings & pensions Fondness for daytime television Possibly inheritances coming his way over the next 10-20 years Cocaine requirements Willingness to live in small cottage in Wales, if necessary.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, *Bob*, I shouldn't have made that > assumption about your political views and I > apologise. The cruellest thing about this whole shambolic situation is that under different circumstances, 80% of the people arguing on this thread against each other would be be on the same political side.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > .. Trident (we are never going > to actually use it anyway)? That's the idea. That's how it's meant to work, isn't it? It's not really a fixation on Trident - it's just one example of how woolly thinking (sorry, 'ideas') translate into absurdly impractical things coming out of mouths of grown men who should know better. Take an hugely expensive programme engineered and designed to fulfil one principle role, remove that role it was designed for, but keep it anyway. The mechanisms of how this opposition leadership function are beyond belief! Just last night, the shadow defence dude has a key bit of his speech altered - (Trident again, topically) - incredibly - just before he stands up to give his speech. The information comes via a post-it note (ironically, from Milne in 'communications'). Shadow Defence is then reported as punching a wall a wall and smashing his phone up. Way to go guys. The Meeja have not been kind, on that I think everyone can agree. But the media should be the tail, not the dog. Look at what the dog is doing and it's no wonder the tail is rampant.

No, I knew he said conventional missiles. I should have said Trident submarines without any Trident missiles. My mistake. The point remains. The Trident programme exists to fulfil the role of a nuclear deterrent, whatever the extra roles it can also accomplish might be, such as fitting with conventional weapons. 'Committing to Trident' without the nuclear missiles - to save jobs .. pointless nonsense. Interesting that I am a 'rightist'? I'm just looking for a centre left opposition with a sound fiscal policy and broad appeal that might have a hope in hell of actually putting the brakes on another 15 years or Conservative government.

yes, yes.. Regular missiles not nuclear ones. I remember. Just swap one for the other and hey presto. Like having a new exhaust. Woolly, harebrained, uncosted nonsense.

And then of course there were the Trident submarines without any missiles on them. However, I expect this was just a small sliver of a well thought-through and multi-faceted defence policy which had been leapt upon and quoted out of context by THE EVIL MEEJA because, er, well.. because it's completely bonkers.

In the workplace, people gravitate towards likeminded individuals who they can spend time with - both at work and socially on some level - people who they feel comfortable with. It's very basic human nature, there is no enforceable means of preventing it - and that's why it's silly. It's the same reason why John McDonnell was appointed shadow chancellor - instead of some more talented woman.

If you say something silly, it gets the press coverage. Solution - stop saying silly things.

The after work drinks thing is classic Corby though. 'Wouldn't it be good if..?' Yeah, it probably would. Any practical, workable suggestions and solutions as to how this might be achieved? 'Not really'.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wouldn't be too sure about that party support > for May *bob*. The tories are just better at > hiding their differences than Labour The Cons have always have been better at knowing when to shut up and when to put up - and during their spell in the Wilderness Years of the Labour 'blip' (i.e. the Blair) they've learned new lessons on how to do it better: now more than ever they know Labour only wins when the Tories are weak. On a 'gut feeling' note - McDonnell is one of the least appealing political characters on just about every level that I've seen for a long, long time. Chancellor of the Exchequer..? You must be joking!

He's got the conch, but a pig's head on a spike isn't too far off.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- whereas May has a mandate despite the > fact that nobody has ever voted for her in any > election! Brilliant. And yet despite this she manages to have the support of the majority of her parliamentary party - and were there to be a general election she would win hands-down. Whereas "Jeremy" has virtually no support in the PLP and were there to be a general election, he would be trounced. One can talk mandates all day long but the bottom line is still the same.

I ALWAYS sit at the rear of any restaurant. I take care to unscrew any nearby lightbulbs that may bring unsolicited illumination and eat quietly with a sack on my head - passing food discreetly under the lip of the sack up to my mouth. The sheer gall of these so-called 'window-sitters' with their 'look at me faces' beggars belief.

To you, these people may simply look like 'people' in a 'restaurant' - if indeed you even noticed them at all. But not to Louisa. Her mystical Third Eye sees deeper, sees all. Call it a gift. Call it a curse. Call it what you will - but there is no hiding from The Eye - as it projects its own bizarre assumptions onto anyone and anything that falls under its crackpot gaze.

People sitting near windows to 'look through them'? Pull the other one. I suppose, next, you'll be telling me that restaurants put seats near windows and encourage people to occupy them so they seem popular and encourage more passing trade to come in. I wasn't born yesterday.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Usual table near the window, Lou? my mistake.. table for two