*Bob*

I agree he chooses his ground but he doesn't shy away from difficult terrain. Da Feltz shares your opinion of him, Keef!

Well you can't respond personally to everyone who asks, can you? And if it's a choice between answering the questions some crappy little hack who's out to smear you at all costs, or going on the BBC to face real questions from the real people who live in London, I feel he's made the right choice.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- He was invited to defend himself, but > refused because he answers to no man! That's nonsense.. quite the opposite, in fact. I've lost count of the amount of times he's done an hour phone-in Q&A on Beeb Radio London (Da Feltz's morning show). That's a full hour, presented by an (often) hostile host, facing any question that comes at him - on a reasonably regular basis. There aren't many major league politician's you can say that about.

Fantastic

I'm glad you proved your innocence, ????. But in the majority of cases, the prisons are full of innocent men - so to speak - and I'm afraid I can't agree with your somewhat Clarksonesque portrait of our charming, courteous, even-tempered, fair-minded Knights Of The Double Yellow.

Like Jah, I'll be voting for Ken but I like Paddick too. I think he's a serious candidate for the job and I like a fair bit of what he has to say. It's just a bit of a shame that a serious candidate is eclipsed a floppy-haired clown, entertaining though he may be. The most bizarre yet strangely popular justification for voting Boris (put forward by those who intend to do so) is that "he's not as stupid as he seems".

You've got to be seriously deranged to vote for Boris. It's not like putting 'Jedi Knight' in the religion box of the census. He's going to be in charge of London, for god's sake.

Interesting article, Barry.. ta for that. It's something of an 'evil art', is mastering.. involving boxes of tricks which seem to have only one knob on the front but cost ?20,000. It is amazing though - what they can squeeze out of a so-so recording (I speak from experience ha ha). It's just case of knowing when to stop: not always easy with the grubby record company exec standing behind the engineer shouting "Louder! Louder! More!"

Mastering technology has changed over the years so the CDs of old will sound different to the CDs of late. It also seems to be a competition these days with record companies to see who can MAKE THEIR CDS SOUND THE LOUDEST - often at the expense of dynamics within the music, man. A huge CD market right now is the re-mastering one. I'd admit that some older CDs sounded appalling and could really benefit from a remastering, but it seems now that everything has to be remastered and re-sold - probably with a couple of stupid bonus tracks at the end of the album that weren't meant to be there originally and spoil the end of the album because you have to get up and stop the CD before they start playing.

I suppose when you get past a certain point of vilification, you just don't really care any more. If you do a search on the 'net for traffic wardens parking on yellow lines, you'll find that there's no shortage of stories from local rags up and down the country where embittered members of the general public have stalked and photographed traffic wardens doing this or that. All of them have that unmistakable whiff: the whiff of revenge.

Perk of the job? Everyone knows the cops occasionally put the siren on to get to the chip shop before it shuts.

Did anyone catch C4's one hour long Party Political Broadcast On Behalf Of The Conservative Party on Monday? "Dispatches", I think they called it.

peckhamboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you saying that failing to put the ticket on > the passenger side rather than the driver side > should be punishable with a parking fine? Because > if so, we'll have to agree to differ on that one. I agree it's trivial and an irritation if you get caught-out on a minor thing such as this. But (like it or not), we live in a world of rules and wherever the lines are drawn, there's always someone who will think its too far and someone who will think it not far enough. If it's ok for the ticket to be on either sidescreen, why not on any of the side windows too? Or the back windscreen? Or the back seat (as long as it's face-up)? The thing is, because of the general hatred of parking tickets, parking fines, parking attendants etc the kind of thing which would be no trouble at all in other circumstances.. let's say.. reading the instructions on the back of a DIY product.. becomes too much trouble and turns into "why should I?!", despite the fact that you won't get fined ?100 for not reading the DIY instructions properly.

I'm not sure that being asked to stick your ticket to one particular side of your windscreen and not the other qualifies as "unnecessarily complex rules".

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2 of them yes. the others took so long and we were > messed around so much trying to get them withdrawn > that I sometimes felt it wasn't worth it. That's a crappy experience, Brendan - and I don't deny it would cheese you off no end. But I would suggest that the majority of the population (me included) have mostly only ever been deservedly ticketed.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > See my statements above *Bob*. In all these > instances we were ticketed illegally because a > traffic warden was trying to make a buck. I saw the statements above. Did you have to pay any of the fines?

If you've parked on, say, a double yellow, does it matter if the warden who ticketed your motor gets paid a commission or not? I don't see why it does.

I still feel sorry for traffic wardens. Perhaps if the general public didn't constantly lie to them in an effort to avoid getting fined, they wouldn't have to assume that the general public are liars who lie in order to avoid getting fined. No-one treats them with any respect. Why should they return the favour?

I feel sorry for traffic wardens. People park illegally, get fined by people who's job it is to issue tickets to people who park illegally - and for some reason can't seem to understand why. "I only parked there for a minute" "I just stopped to use the cashpoint" "I'm waiting for someone" "I'm only just over the line" etc etc etc

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Plus children give a great deal of meaning to your > life whatever class, creed, race etc you are so if > you have little aspirations or can't see > opportunities to fullfill them, a child can help > your sense of worth. This is spot on. The other (less generous) of the same point is that it gives those people who can't be bovvered the perfect excuse not to be bovvered on a more long term basis. "Yeah I did have all these big plans, but I'm going to be a Mum now so I guess I just won't have the chance to see if I could make them work."

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- You claimed dole for 18 > months. I don't know your circumstances and I > wouldn't expect you to share them Oh I don't mind sharing, David. I wasn't in a despairing situation.. I was a musician on the dole (though I'm not sure if my parents could make that distinction). 'The Prince' (*spits*) and his so-called 'Trust' turned me down, so voila.. income support. But I was trying, goddammit. And now I'm a musician paying taxes. I am, however, fully aware that in order for the DSS to give me a chance to make it, they also had to fund 'Psychic Gun', the local metal band who (sadly) did not. That's how the system works.

The problem is that in order to ensure you're providing deserving support for those who require it (I was a good year-and-a-half on income support myself, you know ha ha!) it seems that the system must also pay indefinitely for those who really ought to be shot out of a cannon into a giant bath of piss. That's just how it is.. until someone can make it work better.

Of course, David. They're a stereotype, sure - but they do exist. I know where they live. I've been to their weddings (well.. the ones I couldn't get out of anyway).

If I try and think about why those members of my family all had teenage pregnancies.. I honestly think it was just because they had nothing better to do at the time. Perhaps this makes me a bad person.

Atila wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are teen pregnancies so high? - Is it because > they can't keep their legs together? Or because > they are stupid vacuous, no brain, no life, > wasters, with very little by way of expectations > and ambition other than pusing a pram around > before their 16th birthday? I have very little > sympathy for such people. Move on. On this occasion Atila has accurately summed-up exactly how I feel about those very spongers in my own family. And if anyone here met them, they would agree.