TheCat

Agree with the sentiment here...dont share the work. Sounds like the tutor is saving him/her-self the effort of actually doing any 'tutoring'....

M&S at King College Hospital have advised customers to see their local off-licence for minor shops, and to only visit Kings College M&S for major shops, where you will be served within 4 hours. As always, If it is a real emergency shop, please dial Ocado.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I meant to apologise only about mixing you up, not > calling you a 'Tit' > > Just so we're clear. > > 👍🏼 ha...We'll call that a buried hatchet then:)....

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > See, there you go again, being a tit > > "foolish, stupid and ineffectual person," 1934, > British slang, popular 1950s-60s, crossed over to > U.S. with British sitcoms. It probably developed > from twit (v.) in the sense of "reproach," (1520s, > twite), but it may be influenced by nitwit. Mate, I honestly think you have me mixed up with someone else. I've never had a debate/arguement with you on this forum. You've never told me to 'sling my hook', nor have I used the language you referenced regarding stamping of feet. I notice you did have words on another thread with a poster called 'Cat in a hot tin bus', who did use those words you refer to...but that poster is not me..... Perhaps you don't agree with what I've said, but your reaction seemed a tad aggressive for someone's I've never argued with before....

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thing is Cat, you're one of the people who voted > leave, who uses a certain language. > > > "evil tories are chomping at the bit to tear our > rights > > away..." > > I've seen other stuff "like children stamping > their feet" etc... > > And it's not the kind of language that engages me > in conversation. It puts you into the 'tit' > department of the leave campaigners. > > It's why I told you to sling your hook before, and > if you're looking for a more engaged conversation, > rather than these "off the end of a plank/over a > cliff" type ones, then maybe try writting as if > we're pretty much all on the same page. > Not in a language designed to annoy people who > don't happen to agree with the way things are, or > with what's being being proposed. > > > > Thank you. Well at least the language I use, of which you so disapprove, doesn't include me calling people juvenile names. That's the type of language which doesn't engage me in a conversation I'm afraid.

This whole episode gives me a good chuckle. So teams have used this tactic many times before to mixed effect. But as soon as England make a complete hash of how to counter it, the calls for changes to the rulebook start.....

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- we can only agree what you say or contradict ourselves. I just call that good debating:)

I agree with both of you that we should be much more concerned with human rights and workers protections than the labeling of our eggs....but I find the automatic assumption that the 'evil' tories are chomping at the bit to tear our rights away, a tad alarmist. Oh, and can we please stop labelling something a 'Strawman' just because you don't find it as interesting or important as someone else might - all it does it serves to belittle someone else's concerns or questions, before you have even begun to engage.

Its interesting to me that I note comments on this page (from people who seemingly support the Remain side), suggesting that if EU laws were to be removed, then 'we will still have food standards' and 'why would British laws be any different?' But often commenters on the same side of the fence are concerned that when it comes to things such as human rights, the environment & climate change, workers protections etc etc...then suddenly losing the EU laws is the worst thing in the world, and on those issues, the British government cant be trusted to manage things reasonably? So which is it? Do we believe that the British government will make reasonable laws on their own? or do we believe they will go 'off deep-end' without Big Brother from the EU watching?

This may perhaps be the stupidest thing I've ever written....but I wonder it its at all possible to have a 'reasoned' discussion about these issues? Lets try these ground rules....If I make a statement in support of an immigrant, I am not a 'liberal elite'; and if I make a statement criticizing an immigrant, I am not a 'bigot'. SO...Assuming the two above examples are true, can we not agree that 1) its not ALL immigrants that act this way, only a select few, but also that 2) there are clearly some problems with the system which allow for SOME immigrants to take the Michael, and this needs to be addressed?

Tony Blair complaining that the public were misinformed?...bahahahahaa!

I have a big doodle. But when I take it out at the park, people seem to shout.

I like it...how about.... CYCLISTS UP IN ARMS OVER CARS AND BUSES INSIDIOUSLY CREEPING ON TO THEIR ROADS London cyclists are preparing to form a community action group over the nefarious growth of cars and buses using the capital's roads. "What's that?!!!, I cant't hear you over my music!!! Said local down and out, and part-time cyclist, Brian, from Camberwell. After EDF News was able to remove the headphones, Brian was more forthcoming, "Yeah, these bloody cars and buses just started turning up one day, and now they're everywhere. I try to cut up the wrong side of the road, or jump a light, and these car and bus drivers get all upset. They must have a f#cking deathwish messing with us cyclists" "We're gonna march on parliament this Saturday to stop this madness. Although its a bit far from my place, can you give me a lift mate?"

LOCAL DULWICH WOMAN THINKS SHE CAN PARK LIKE A COMPLETE @RSEHOLE JUST BY PUTTING HAZARD LIGHTS ON ?Don?t worry?, she said, ?I?ll be back in two minutes? Pulling up outside her favourite Lordship Lane boutique, Susan Granger, is of the opinion that if you put your hazard lights on, parking like an absolute c#nt becomes acceptable. Her completely impractical, cream coloured Range Rover sat double-parked for seven minutes while she had to ?run a few errands?. ?It?s such a pain to find a park around there, so I just flick the hazard lights on while I nip in. It only ever takes a minute or two [laughs]. People sometimes toot, but it must be at something else, as my hazard light are on, so I?m fine.? ?Sometimes I don?t even need to put my hazard lights on at all, like when I?m dropping the kids at school. I?m pretty sure the Highway Code has a clause which states that you can do whatever the f#ck you want on the road if you?re dropping off or picking up children?

you're right...it's sh!t

Aside from the obvious jokes about the Mile High Club....one often wonders how people spend so much time in the onboard loo, particularly when others are obviously waiting Perhaps it just seems like a long time when you're sitting in your seat (or standing in a queue) staring eagle-eyed at the toilet door, thinking to yourself....."That person has been in there for f#@king ages!" As the only place for privacy on the plane, perhaps people slide the latch across, then try to forget for 10 mins that they're cheek to jowl with 200 strangers....but that doesn't help me when I'm about to wet myself....

Neila Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes trying to get better quality food what a > stupid idea... Where's my mind? > > > > TheCat Wrote: > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Ah...organic farming..taking land that would > feed > > thousands, and using it to feed dozens...... I wasn't challenging your right to desire it, just alluding to actual facts, that organic farming is more damaging to our environment and uses significantly more of our scarce resources to produce. If you prefer organic food, good for you, but own the fact that you desire something that's damaging the world moreso than alternatives. I drive a V8 car. It's more pollutant than riding my bicycle. But I prefer driving my V8....

Ah...organic farming..taking land that would feed thousands, and using it to feed dozens......

Virtue signalling drives me absolutely crazy. And if one dares to question a virtue signaler, this means you simply must HATE gays/women/muslims/blacks/insert Social Justice issue here...... We seem to be in an age where the only views one can hold are extreme views. You must Hate Trump, and if you dont hate every single thing about him, them it means you must LOVE him. Social media and popular media alike seem to not allow for judging individual actions. So because I voted Tory at the last election, some of my wifes left-leaning friends think I must agree with every single one of their policies. I dont.

On short haul, I actually prefer being able to purchase something I might actually want to eat, rather than being thrown some awful packaged sandwich, and having no choice about it. That said, while I'd still use BA on long Haul, on short haul its a different story. I booked the family flights to Portugal last week for summer holiday, and EasyJet and BA came up as roughly the same price for the flight times I was after. Whereas previously I would always have chosen BA in that circumstance, I actively chose EasyJet for a few reasons...their planes typically seem more modern, there's less risk of union strike action, and the EasyJet staff actually don't seem to resent the fact that you are there....

There's two major issues at play here in my view... 1 His policies/beliefs, however altruistic, simply will never appeal to the majority 2 As someone above has mentioned, no matter what his policies, when you see the man speaking or being questioned he appears to have the gravitas/charisma/leadership qualities of a wet lettuce leaf....

I personally don't know how anyone thought he would be a strong, effective leader in the first place. The fact that the Labour Party has allowed itself to be 'held over a barrel' twice by a few hundred thousand Corbyn zealots is a crying shame....

Trump is abhorrent, of that I have no doubt, but I find it interesting/confusing/amusing that many of the people I've heard say we should have nothing to do with the President of the World's largest economy (and ~15% of the UK's trade), are also the same people bemoaning us turning our backs on 'international collaboration', and the loss of trade we might suffer from Brexit. So does the UK 'welcome anyone'...except those with whom we personally disagree?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > > Do a bit more > > research and you'll see there are many, many > areas > > where girls and women are outperfOrm boys and > men. > > But are any of those areas in salary and/or > promotion? If females are outperforming males > academically but still lagging behind in terms of > equal pay and promotion prospects, it won't do > them much good, will it? Rendel, I don't dispute that there are legitimate concerns for equality of women in many areas, what I was trying to highlight is the problem with people saying things like 'on ALL metrics' women are worse off. There are also areas where men are disadvantaged and they receive precious little attention in popular media. We've obviously already had a discussion here on the gender pay gap, which im sure could go on for some time!...but there are other areas which deserve attention... Just as we are concerned that only 25% of FTSE board members are female, we should also be concerned that... >75% of homeless are men >90% of those imprisoned are men >90% workplace deaths are men National spending on Women's specific Health issues dwarves spending on mens specific health issues. Women face some problems more keenly than men, just as men face some more keenly than women. We should address all as best as possible. I just get annoyed when some people seem to think that because one has been born male then they've just clipped their Golden Ticket....

ah....so the 'correct' metric for such a complicated and nuanced issue is clearly the one number which you have chosen? who's cherry picking now? What this data (and many other studies) show, is that the gender pay gap is largely the result of different career choices which women make versus men (i.e. becoming a teacher and not a dentist, or often choosing part-time over full -time employment, or doing less over-time hours). Many of these choices have to do with the pressures of having children. So I will concede that there is a serious and meaningful discussion to be had about how we can better balance childcare/parenting between the sexes. As this will free-up women (and men) to have more flexibility in the choices they make with regards to family versus career. What I do not concede, and what is frequently misrepresented by the press, is that the wage gap is a result of discrimination. When I read or hear the phrase 'women get paid less than men FOR THE SAME WORK' I want to poke my eyes out, as its a complete fallacy. The gender pay gap (as its commonly reported) is an aggregate of all men and all women, it does not compare people of the same experience doing the same job. Studies have again and again shown that for the same experience in the same role, with the same company the pay gap is negligible, and if it is not, then we have had the Equal Pay Act for nearly 50 years, and that is illegal.