Huguenot

Well I define Marketing as a strategy to communicate the benefits of your product or services to key customer demographics. In this sense, sticking up signposts around Sainsbury carpark identifying priority parking for Mums with Kids is sending a clear message to a core audience that says 'we like you'. I'm sure you can quibble, but my point is that Sainsbury aren't putting these parking spots up as an act of charity to a desperate group of oppresed victims. They're doing it because they want the money from these customers, and they understand that convenience will affect that expenditure. All of these aghast Mums that feel their entitlements are threatened are really just victims of the strategy, and probably shouldn't get all hoity toity about it. I'd consider feeder roads to be infrastucture projects.

I don't quite get what you mean buggie - the fact that more companies than Sainsbury do it doesn't mean it's not a marketing exercise surely? They're not legally obliged to do it are they? Did I miss some legislation? Are young mums now considered disabled?

Nobody really thinks mother and baby slots are anything other than a marketing exercise by Sainsbury do they?

Oh flipping heck. Just getting my way through this, and then I saw a comment about series 2. Is this going to be one of those silly bloody serials where you don't find out what happens before you've been dragged through several series of deteriorating quality and increasingly silly new characters?

A quick image search on Google for 'Freddie Ljungberg autograph' will reveal that indeed it's pretty consistent and it's not like that.

Have you considered going through it yourself and asking her to follow? Remember, a leader without any cats is just a woman having a stroll. Perhaps a bit of a chat about rights and responsibilities? Ask her to write down her fears as a way of externalising them?

Ricky dear, if people don't think you're British it's entirely your own fault. You introduced yourself to the forum by saying this: "What a shame it is that the firearms laws in this country are so unnecessarily restrictive. Now that's something you people should get your Parliament to debate on." If you say things like that it's pretty clear that you don't consider yourself to be British, and you don't consider this parliament or society to be yours. I'm just starting to think you're a pretty sad case now - all this talk of guns and defending your family, all this racism and homophobia, it's all just sad.

Agreed.

'Bankers don't create wealth' is a hackneyed cliche. You'd need to define what 'wealth' was first. If it was resources and material posessions, then in provding a service that's in demand from other people (providing a resource) then yes they do create wealth. Over 90% of the 'wealth' in the country comes from services of one kind or another, so if you want to insist that bankers don't create wealth, then you'd need to accept that most of us don't. Their fee for this service certainly seems disproportionate, but most people try and attract the highest fees for their labour so the bankers aren't doing anything that everyone else wouldn't do. I'm not defending the ridiculous situation that banking activity has left us in, I'm just pointing out that this doesn't make them criminals, and doesn't make them much different from anyone else.

There seems to be a lot of peeps on here convicting the government and the judiciary in absentia based on hearsay and prejudice. I don't think that would be regarded as justice. MPs did not 'loot' the expenses. They certainly acted immorally, but mostly within the law, and for the most part subject to the guidance of the expenses office. Those that broke the law suffered accordingly. I'm not sure about the police and press payments issue - but I understood the investigation is still underway? We can make no claims to justice until the dust has settled. Regarding banks very few committed illegal activities, in the main they operated within a financial system that lacked sufficient regulation. This doesn't mean there was a crime.

Cycling is surprisingly fun - but I'm not so sure I would have done it in London. I tend to steer clear of the majority of exercise, but when I got myself a bike for Christmas I found myself doing a nice and easy 60 kms on a weekend without putting myself in trouble. London to Paris sounds like a perfect distance - so don't let it put anyone off!

I don't think a unified disgust with racism could be considered 'marching in lockstep'.

White revolutionary immigrants. I'm interested in your unnecessary reference to the colour of their skin, do you feel this is a key factor in terms of 'quality'?

I'm just fairly entertained by the idea that Rick doesn't see the irony in someone who has taken advantage of the free movement of labour trying to stop it being offered to other people. An immigrant complaining about immigrants, whatever next?

"Without researching it..." There's your clue mate. The figures clearly vary dependent upon which year you're looking at. You bizarrely argue that you don't believe the figures merely because you don't want to, which is an illogical approach. "Ever tighter UK laws against gun ownership haven't seen a corresponding fall in gun crime.". I'm not sure what this is referring to, but it seems to be incorrect. This story is describing substantial falls over the last decade. Please note that the '42' figure refers to all deaths, not just homicides. The equivalent 'deaths' figure for the US would be around 35,000. The fact is that the number of gun homicides in the US simply IS thousands of times larger than the UK. I have made no claim that restricting access to guns would zero this figure, but you can't kill a person with a gun if you don't have access to one.

Ermm.. because of the 12,632 people murdered with firearms? Are you genuinely this stupid?

I don't have a campaign against the 2nd Amendment, I neither know nor care what it is. I was in fact responding to your original statement here: "But what a shame it is that the firearms laws in this country are so unnecessarily restrictive." I have pointed out that contrary to your rather stupid opinion, the 'shame' is the 12,632 people in the US who were murdered at the end of a firearm, or the other 25,000 who also died at the end of firearms through accident or misadventure. Your rather 'Smug American' demand for access to weapons so you can play with yourself would most likely end up with thousands of people dead who didn't need to be. Only someone deranged could think that was a good idea.

My position is indefensible? Are you for real? You cannot really think that? Nobody could be that daft.

Oh you're just being silly Ricky, you're letting yourself down. The evidence from the UK is that despite your dawn of civilization tosh, humans get by very effectively without having guns in their houses. It also has the side effect of having 12,622 fewer firearm homicides. It makes a mockery of your claim the guns in houses are 'inevitable'. This is really obvious stuff. Why not just accept that there is no sensible justification for filling your cupboards with weapons, and that you pay an awfully big price for the luxury. The obsession of US males with guns is more about masturbation than trembling fearfully in your homes scared of every passing breeze.

"Man has kept weapons in his dwelling ever since the dawn of civilization, and will continue to well into the future." Is that it? That's the substance of your argument? That's the warrior thing again isn't it, you little cutie? I love it. 'Dawn of civilization' I can hear the classical music surging over the top.... Rick Channing in stark silhouette, his biceps straining at his shirt, and his strong capable hands (but capable of such tenderness) gripping his .38 snubnose at his shoulder. Ha ha.

"no-one's in any danger as a result of my legally held weapons." Ah, you're trying to make the point that you're different to everyone else, that you're special? It reminds me of those middle aged drunk men who say that they can drive home because they're different to everyone else. The stress on the word 'legal' is really flimsy - as if the suggestion is that if it's legal, it must be okay then.

All your weapons? How many weapons do you need to "defend your family"? It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Kept under lock and key? Not going to be much use against your hypothetical 'aggresive invader' then are they? This is the problem with gun arguments, they all turn out to be so much nonsense. As for me 'proving' that people perish as a direct result of the 2nd Amendment... words fail me. There is no doubt that there would still be murders if gun restrictions were in place - so once again, stop trying to defend arguments that I haven't made. The fact is that you can't kill people with a gun if you don't have access to a gun. As for your 'suspicion' on the number, are you seriously trying to refute the point by suggesting that it's not exactly 10,000? The last figure I have the exact data was 2008, and that was 12,632 firearm homicides. Is that precise enough for you? The source was the US Centre for Disease Control. Or is your paranoia such that you think they're all lying? The 'fact' is that you have made no sensible justification for gun ownership that haven't been based on weak premises. I've provided you with 12,632 reasons why guns should be restricted. If you have guns in the house they are more likely to kill your children than defend them.

Oh right, which ones of the 10,000 people dying every year are just opinions rather than facts? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about wide opinions, as I haven't claimed any? This is just like what you did with the 'army' reference, you're trying to defend arguments that I haven't made, because you can't defend gun ownership. Why are you doing this? Since gun ownership endangers your family instead of protecting them you must have a pretty big motivation for doing it. What is your motive?

So are you saying that fencing stolen property should not be a crime, or are you saying that creative expenses should be an imprisonable offence?

Do you know how silly it sounds for a big strong warrior like you, with your big biceps and guns, to be whingeing about name calling? If 10,000 people dying each year isn't enough 'facts' for you, you must be deranged.