JohnL

Usually that mild punishment has the additional text that being upside down the victim/iphone robber stays conscious longer as blood rushes to the head. LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think driving at a perp is not the right thing > to do. I think this is probably a better option. > > > > > > > > > > >

Mounting the pavement does not mean driving at in my language Unless you did it with no control or near pedestrians - you're just blocking of the escape.

The Dutch like to celebrate.

Really young men need to see how complaining is done and how you go about dealing with people effectively but without getting angry or upset. It's not taught in school or college. Maybe a read of one of the money type forums helps - they always complain, or here :)

Marked down as LET by Fidens. http://www.fidens.co.uk/commercial-property/properties/search

I did this on nights out with certain colleagues. You would wake up with a headache, memory loss and loads of money gone :) If you remember where it went - you weren't drinking. *Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't want to labour the point, Otta, but the > point of a round is that it more or less all works > out (apart from the tightarse - there's always > one). But even so. One week maybe you get hit by a > big round, but the next week not. > > But if everyone's average spend on booze is > genuinely ?200 in one night - ten years ago - then > they're all drinking 80 pints or 40 cocktails or > whatever else. > > Taxis, clubs, food, extras.. yeah, but ?200 just > on booze? Each? Come on..

When people go rounds they drink at the rate of the fastest (20 mins a drink). Buying by myself I drink at my rate (40 mins a drink).

I remember somebody mentioning on here the SE15 scowl - used to deter muggers etc. But to have everybody looking miserable :(

I thought it was only journalists and police who went through bins.

Not sure - don't they go for the voter sitting on the fence. I flirt with them all - but don't vote for any - they love me :). LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green in both. > > I encourage everyone to vote, because the > politicians will ignore the needs of any group of > people who don't.

UKIP are just a protest vote - they won't exactly be going back to there constituencies and preparing for government. I prefer to protest by not bothering - and I think I'm in the majority. If turnout fell to single figures -then the system would have to change..... ....or maybe give me a 'none of the above' tick box. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > PokerTime Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We have an economy and policies that have shut > > down upward social mobility and ordinary > working > > families in ordinary areas are feeling it. They > > are working harder with less to show for it and > > their children are really struggling to find > jobs. > > When you have a political elite, who are > > disconnected from that, and the wake of a > > financial distaster like the banking crisis, > where > > the culprits haven't suffered and it seems like > > business as usual to many, defection to parties > > like UKIP is what happens. Farage is as elitist > as > > the rest of them, but he does a better job of > > playing the common man than Cameron, Clegg and > > Miliband. > > > Yep, best vote in an ex stockbroker who wants > further deregulation, fewer employment protection, > an even smaller state and considerably less > redistribution. That'll help those who are > struggling eh?

I got 'mugged' by a bunch of candidates & canvassers all shouting at me last time I voted (not around here - tower hamlets) Back in Wales it was all done rather seriously - no canvassers allowed near the polling station - so was shocked by it.

Someone tweeted that the purpose of democracy and voting is to get rid of people, not vote them in :)

When you put discarded TVs, Cupboards etc outside, I wonder who takes them first.

we played cricket on the road - and if a car came it had to wait until the end of the over.

You get the feeling He's a Scottish version of the Welsh Crachach - it's one of the reasons voters will vote to stay in the UK IMHO. Won't be given as a reason however and in Wales no-one agress on anything :). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crachach Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > El Pibe Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > and I find Salmond genuinely awful. > > > > But I guess that's for anoher thread. > > > I probably is for another thread, but whilst we're > here, from the first time I saw/heard him on > telly, well before I was really interested in > politics at all (not that I'm THAT in to it these > days to be totally honest) I just found myself > really really disliking the man. He just stinks of > self interest.

But aren't we not meant to discuss blame under insurance terms ? No insurance and it's just murky - but a solicitor would probably also say don't discuss blame I'd think.. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DuncanW Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why was she calling the police anyway? > > Had a crime been committed? > > Generally speaking, it seems reasonable that if > the responsible party in a road accident is > refusing to accept responsibility then the police > should be asked to mediate. Now, I can't imagine > the police would come out for anything less than a > proper smash-up, but even so, I can understand it > being her first reaction.

Actually I've known a few people who stopped going out when they had issues such as this or if they did planned every movement around the availability of a WC. You don't even think about it if you don't. It's worse if you have a stoma or such. mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Having asked to use the pubs toilet and they > declined i had little option with my bladder > problem but to go outside. There seemed little > cover in the area so used a wall and was startled > by someone shouting at me and taking pictures. I > tried to laugh it off to show that i wasnt > dangerous or intimidating, shook myself dry and > then just walked away to avoid confrontation'.

Are skateboarders any different to bikes or scooters in law ? Maybe every road user should have insurance. edit: of course any road user can be an ass with his vehicle but can also have accidents.

Well here's the list if you're caught out and don't want to buy a half in the pub or a coffee in Nero's. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/a_to_z/service/405/public_toilets So as a society we get what we deserve maybe. PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The OP was photographing an act of law breaking. > The OP was not setting out to photograph genitals. > The display of genitals was an act of that law > breaking. That's how the law would see it. When > you break the law you lose the right to consent to > reasonable acts to catch you committing that > crime. In the absence of a law enforcer (i.e. > police) use of photography and CCTV is perfectly > reasonable. > > It's blatently clear to all why the OP was > offended and why the OP took that picture. To > suggest otherwise is nonsense. Equally, to > challenge the right to confront those behaving in > an unlawful way is also nonsense. > > I do think location is key here. We are not > talking about some discreet alley in the dead of > night. We are talking about an open space, next to > a children's playground, a busy throughfare for > pedestrians, and ironically the wall of an open > bar/ restaurant that has toilets inside. Put all > of that together and I see very little in terms of > defense of this guy, and fail to see anything to > criticise in the actions of the OP.

Have you been to Charing Cross recently after 8PM Open air toilets is the new thing, :) Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't know if I read the OP wrong but to me the > most offensive part is that he apparently chose to > pee on a piece of street art. > > Peeing openly in the street is unarguably > antisocial. I accept there are mitigating > circumstances sometimes but it's certainly not > acceptable social behaviour or people would do it > totally openly, wouldn't they. If a man walked up > to the entrance of Sainsbury's on a Saturday > morning and casually peed against the glass he'd > be arrested before he'd zipped his trousers up. It > seems that as long as a man makes a half-hearted > attempt to conceal what he's doing then some > people think it's OK, which is a bit strange when > you think about it.

Did we actually close all our public loos because of other types of anti-social behaviour ? or just converted to flats ?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe it's because pubs don't take kindly to > people walking in and using the loo without buying > a drink. Wasn't the government going to pay some organisations to do this. I always assumed this happened AFTER chucking out time - hence the open loos in Charing Cross

there are two types of driver too, slow/careful and fast/overtaking. Was on a 63 which was determined to catch and overtake the 63 in front recently - he did too.

The problem is as well as the human mind perhaps being able to alter reality - it can also perhaps alter perception of reality - so how can you ever know. Then again nobody knows - unfortunately never seen anything even though I look and my dead mother was a spiritualist. Maybe ghosts avoid me.