*Bob*

I think you're confusing 'someone getting their cock out' with 'the plunging of a piece of glass deep into human flesh'. Easily done. often do the same myself.

I totally agree with Fox and Lou. Fighting in pubs is brilliant. If there's a glass in the face - even better. So come on, people! Let's bring the ambience on - SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL PROPPA BOOZER this Saturday night - by crushing a pint pot into someone's eye socket.

I have fond memories of a kids party where the bouncy castle was run by a jovial man with a beer in his hand and a roll-up hanging out of his mouth. The party was full of regular non-uptight normal sane parents who didn't really give it a second thought because for the of god there have got to be other more important things to get bothered about.

Personally, I think the parents who set the really bad example are the ones who gasp with horror should a puff of fag smoke or a waft of liquor come within ten feet of their spawn's nostrils. For it is these parents who will surely launch the jobsworth dullards of the future into society - the ones who the rest of us will be stuck next to at parties before pretending we need a wee.

Often at the same time.

They can have a gin with their meal though, can't they? Like they do in France? It's good to start them young. Otherwise you end-up like in America, where grown met hit 21, get a keg in and spend the evening getting their knobs out and punching cattle.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also agree with Sue. If a parent looking after a > child was actually drunk, that would be different. What about if the the child is drunk as well? Is that a problem? (Asking for a friend)

Personally I prefer the adventure playground in Peckham Rye. There's a little copse at the back (near the zipwire) where you can discard your needles - and you can have a game of table football afterwards.

Don't think I could face the playground without at least a few drinks inside me. Preferably a hit from the bong as well.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > *Pedant* Well you did say "I could not of made it easier to understand". Whereas in fact - by simultaneously declaring it "not a thread to discuss fox hunting" but also with "a chance to express apposing views" - you actually made it completely impossible to understand. On the pedant front, you'll note I haven't picked up on spelling and grammar - but when the overall meaning lost through poor wording, I think it's a fair cop. Even your clique were confused.

Come on Jez, old skool Aristos wear clothes with holes in and drive eight year old cars. The flash ones are mostly nouveau riche.

This is not a thread to discuss fox hunting but a chance to express an opposing view *by* signing the petition. There - that's better. One small word can make such a difference.

The royals and aristos are there for out amusement. Enjoy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11596791/Blacked-up-aristocrat-crashes-into-lamppost-while-three-times-drink-drive-limit.html

Anyway, let's see if it's possible to discuss the potential lifting of the foxhunting ban 'without discussing foxhunting', just for the hell of it. I was always under the impression that there was a sort of unwritten parliamentary rule that successive opposing governments wouldn't act regressively (with regards to legislation introduced by the previous government) - on the grounds that if they did, it would start to resemble a feuding couple the morning after a flaming row - with one wanting the radio on in the morning and the other not. More so than usual, I mean. The fact that this is even being considered only underlines what it's all really about: one in the eye for the townies to avenge one in the eye for the toffs, like a victorious football team waving their silly oversized cup around to moos of delight from crowds of cock-a-hoop morons.

keekybreeks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oh hang on, Im not one of the pair being cast as > bemoaners here am i ? Lord no, you are one of the last remaining true rays of sunlight.

It's a wonderful irony.. Two people bemoaning the strangulation of debate and free speech - stemming from a thread where the OP dictated the terms of what was and wasn't allowed.

If you want no debate, Fox, I suggest you fire up the printer and sellotape some sheets of A4 to trees in the locality. What did you expect? I mean, really..

AQ Foxy specifically said he didn't want any debate on the thread, only supporting views. I quote "this is not a thread to discuss fox hunting". The Fox's wish has been granted.

mmmfffhh hhhssss uuuhhhhhh

Get one of the DeWalt impact drills. That's one SEXY drill. You'll be drillin' all day long just for pleasure of drilling.

Working up to your second flounce of the year?

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ... it was abolished for a reason. Unfortunately most of that reason wasn't anything to do with given a shit about foxes

GREAT - so now you've made your bed and 'chosen' the place where you live (having weighed up the options you have, of which you have many) - and decided that this, here, is the place where you want to live, perhaps you could try not to be such a bloody misery about it.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Foxy don't take everything *Bob* says to heart. > Being locked up in my Ann Summers dungeon is > enough to make anyone bitter. > > Louisa. "Bitty.."

'I've worked hard for forty years to buy my home in a place I don't really want to live any more. And I intend to stay here and be a total misery about it until the day I die' It's not 'to satisfy the likes of myself', you plum! YOU'RE the one who's dissatisfied! Jesus wept.