Huguenot

Oh my bl**dy good heavens jayzuz!!! That was for real? Alan you really deleted all your posts? Outrageous. Just as well they're cached on Google. Anyone want me to copy and paste? ;-)

Interesting one this... Hypothetically if they ceased to be monarchs, that still wouldn't give the nation any greater right to their properties than any other established hereditary family. However, under the Civil List, the royal family gives up their Crown Estate revenue in return for parliament paying their expenses. Since the revenue from the Crown Estates is just under ?200m, and the Civil List only amounts to ?12m, then tax payers receive a net return of ?188m per annum for retaining the royal family. Despite cynicism inside our borders, you could argue that a vast proportion of GB Plc.'s revenues are influenced by the reputation for tradition and stability that the royal family confers on us abroad - far in excess of that paltry ?12m these guys cost us.

Couldn't agree more Macroban. I hope Alan Dale's reading this after our spat a year ago?

I'm not sure you understand the situation, as your question misses the point. People borrowed money in what had been a sustained period of high economic growth and low credit costs. When people borrowed money at these rates they could afford it, and expected (and were supported by financial companies in collusion with this belief) that the positive financial outlook would continue. The damage is being done to borrowers returning to the market as their deals conclude, and finding that new deals are much more expensive and for an expected 1% of individuals may be beyond their means. This is nothing to feel 'guilty' about, no act of criminal intent had been committed. In fact it's very sad for those affected. There's a suspisciously crowing tone about your post which seems deeply unpleasant. There may have been the odd spiv who attempted to deliberately defraud the market, but you won't find them by tossing sweeping accusations out in public forums, and they won't feel guilty (trust me).

I understand your poke Quids. To accept the challenge, I don't consider the picture is as dark as you describe. There needs to be an inequity between product, productivity, supply and demand to generate a genuine global collapse. I just can't see it. A third of the world's population is stil demanding access to basic supplies. Half of the world's population is in India and China and they're looking for ovens, not toasters. The major issue - that they're looking for meat rather than arable stock - still hasn't been addressed, and they're willing to sacrifice labour rather than principle to achieve it. The majority global debt nonsense was based upon poorly executed short term derivative gambles on a non existent promise. The UK still represents a secure market that guarantees reasonable payment on a commodities barter. This only exists in two other markets globally - SG & NY. 60,000 may lose their jobs this year, but 70,000 will be back tomorrow.

Polish guys did my last big job, and I'm sure anyone who'd been there would say they did a cracking result. We had some humorous moments with the fireplace and electrics, but if you take on a major job without the odd wry smile then my advice is don't start. At school my report was 'did the bare minimum', but the Polish guys 'met expectations without harrassment' and the English guys on the previous job 'appeared to meet minimum requirements whilst failing to meet acceptable standards'. Rang the UK berks when we leaked water into the downstairs flat and discovered they'd changed their number 4 times. Still p1ssed off.

You're right, rally behind the righteous MadWorld. You sleep in the stables, I'll be with the horses ;-)

The real Jonathan Swift observed: "I have done my utmost for some years past, to stop the Progress of Mob, but have been plainly born down by numbers, and betrayed by those who promised to assist me." In fact he had a problem with piss-poor Hugh Boulter, Archbishop of Armagh, "King of the Mobs", on the grounds that "It's a pity a prelate should die without law". This Jon bloke sucks eggs.

Ooooooh. How can you not?

I always thought Quids was somehow a part of the city? ;)

BTW that comes across just like the public school debater mockney often accuses me of being ;-)

It's a weird thing this kind of encounter. I tried to do some counselling once but as those who know me would know, I can be a bit abrupt when faced with rational dislocations.... "It's terrible but primally satisfying". We're an incredibly liberal forum, but we need to accept at some point that not all things are relative. We draw lines in the sand to establish an equality of identity, for example freedom and responsibility are equal partners. We reserve the freedom to behave like aimless gibbons (bum slapping neanderthals), but are aware that without demonstrating our responsiblity to mutual empowerment we'd still be punching the ground around waterholes with bison bones. So we don't goose arses. We can't indulge the bum slappers without recognising that in doing so we sacrifice the concept of society at every level: mutual respect and reasoned group solutions. I can't imagine that most readers think that responding with a smile means one is generating criminality (what??? short skirts and sexual assault????), but we should probably recommend that the visceral response should be suspended if we're not going to egg on a generation of inappropriate copy cats?

I hate to get all serious about this but... Sexual offenders are well known to progress from essentially 'innoncent' uninvited demonstrations of sexual intent to more threatening crimes over a period of decades. Your humorous juvenile was demonstrating several disturbing traits: he took pleasure in breaking social taboos, he had reduced his target from an individual to a series of physical attributes, he became physical with someone outside his social circle, he subordinated his target to his own needs (he could have no idea you'd be entertained), he satisfied a thrill seeking urge by physically dominating a stranger, he felt that he could make this challenge without fear of retribution. I should add that your failure to react will have reinforced his belief that these are acceptable traits, and increased the likelihood that he will commit more offensive crimes in the future.

Yep happened to me. In the end I wrote to the lovely lady at The Guardian, Maragaret Dibben, with all the details. She didn't mess about, she went straight to the top, copied me on all correspondence, and got the perfect result!

Well, MW, you can work it out from the site that d_c posted. Let's say you weigh 130 lbs: Run for an hour at 6mph (fairly middling jogger pace), and according to these data tables you'd burn up 6 miles/590 calories. This works out at about 98 calories per mile. Conversely a medium breast stroke is about 1 mph (top speed is around 4mph), and you'd burn up 1 mile & 590 calories in an hour. This is about 590 calories per mile. Hence you'd need to do 590/98= 6 miles running for every one mile swimming breast stroke to burn up equivalent energy levels. If we looked at front crawl we'd get a different answer. It's about 20% faster on average and easier on energy usage, so in an hour you'd burn up 1.2miles & 472 calories. This is 394 calories per mile. Hence you'd need to do 394/98 = 4 miles running for every mile swimming a leisurely front crawl to burn up equivalent energy levels. The ratios stay pretty much the same regardless of weight.

You could also lop another half a mile off if you're going to the East side of the City by walking Rye Lane, Peckham Hill Street, Old Kent Road, Tower Bridge Road, Tower Bridge

On Google Earth the route that SMG took is almost exactly 4 miles from Goose Green Roundabout to Blackfriars. You could cut 200m off by cutting down Grove Lane to Camberwell rather than walking past Denmark Hill station and Kings.

What would the typical outcome of the pencil test be for 36C nubs?

I laughed until I cried... check out the video footage from Confirmado Cat Eating Festival

"Adventure Bar provides viewing gallery and real ales for males over 25"

On another note, please find attached an excellent summary document which covers the entire debate on social housing. You may find that some of your preconceptions are unfounded, and some reinforced ;-)

I think your point about sold off properties may not be quite right, as council housing is still estimated to be around 20% of the country's housing stock. I also note that according to census, in 1971 over 70% of council housing tenants were economically active, this has now dropped to less than 40%. This means there are less 'rich' people in council housing than there have been at any time in the past. The largest challenge with council housing is not immigration, but security of tenure. This means that couples whose extended families have long since flown the nest, or upwardly mobile familes, are still living in large family homes and can't be down-sized. IMHO this isn't reasonable as it doesn't conform with the social precept 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs etc.'. However, I can imagine the outcry at granny being kicked out of the family home. It isn't racist to say that internal revenue should support local contributors as a priority. However it is disingenuous to claim that you're 'getting your own money back'. The majority of those receiving social support take out far more than they ever contribute, meaning that they're accepting funds from total strangers. Not all of these total strangers are likely to accept one person's perspective on who is the most needy.

Overkill ;-)

Just remember, uncooked steak is a frisbee*, not antique porcelain ;-) *Note, do not try this at home

How many years ago ;-)