Huguenot

It doesn't need to be protected, the squirrel is covered by the protection of Wild Mammals clauses regarding suffering and cruelty. In an isolated offence the owner would get off with a warning, however on a second offence he couldn't claim that his animal's behaviour was unpredictable.

I agree with you EP. 'Driving' was probably the wrong word, I meant that since the rest of the world don't know what their preferred solution is in Syria, they're not in a position to either suggest it or support the outcome. All they've really done is to voice disapproval at atrocities - a fairly limp wristed exercise at best. I fear for a coherent outcome mainly because opposition factions aren't united and the objects of their wrath are unpredictable. If the two key motivations for any human behaviour are opportunity to gain and fear of loss, then all sides seem to think that they have nothing to gain from rapprochement, and that they've lost so much already that a few more bodies are incidental. The international community's responsibility should be to create that carrot for them, but all they've really done is ring-fenced it hoping they'll all get bored - not something that communities obsessed with bloodlines and vendetta are famous for. I also agree with Lynch about Egypt. I have business partners in Egypt, and their response to the situation has mainly been surprise that democracy doesn't mean their candidate wins. They're quite cross about it.

Is UDT's refusal to disclose his own club affiliations simply an act of cowardice? Making jibes about other peoples enthusiams for a bloke who hides behind anonymity is just a bit wheedly no?

Regardless of the law protecting grey squirrels or not, this particular activity is subject to the Animal Welfare Act 2005. The Act introduced tougher potential penalties, including fines of up to ?20,000, a maximum jail term of 51 weeks and a lifetime ban on owners keeping pets. You wouldn't need to prove that the owner incited the attack, merely that he didn't take such step as were in his power to prevent the attack taking place. Having the dog off a leash and the dog doing a mental probably wouldn't make him culpable, however a repeat offence would as it would demonstrate intent.

Can I add, that I'm absolutely staggered by the proposal that those who disagree with elected local councillors should go and harrass them outside their house? There is absolutely no role for a mob in achieving political goals. This is absolutely insane.

The UK Uncut exercise was explained clearly by their own representatives: They wanted to make politics personal. In doing so they wanted to rubbish ideas, intelligence and coherent debate. They didn't want Nick Clegg to make decisions based on well thought out solutions to difficult problems, they wanted explicitly to harrass and intimidate him through the humilation and incapacitation of his friends, family and neighbours. In effect they were made hostage to the agenda of UK Uncut, a minority direct action group whose activities are only different from the Red Brigade in terms of degree. To endorse this kind of politics is to facilitate it. Whether Clegg was there or not is irrelevant - it is the intent that counted. That aside it is also blatantly stupid. Making any decision 'personal' only entrenches positions and polarises debate to the extent that meaningful action is impossible.

I note that Tahrir Square is full once more with angry young men of violent intent who have decided that democracy's not for them when neither of the two run-off candidates are sufficiently appealing. Shocking mess in Syria - driven mainly by the fact that no external power can envisage an attractive solution. Mayhem suits a lot of people.

Jeez Morris - just knock on the door and ask to buy her a drink. You might not even like her. This peculiar 'courtly love' scenario you've created in your head is objectifying and dehumanising her. She's a real person, and probably has all manner of irritating habits and unpleasant hang ups. She might be great - in which case I guarantee that she'll have little time for people who worship from afar and fret in their front room about the perfect first encounter. Get a pair. Girls like that.

I don't think you should try and beat anything to death with cornflakes. Anything at all. Just put it out of your head. Tuna's pretty good in cans and with mayonnaise. The fresh stuff, real fish, is exceedingly disappointing. Chewy and monotonous, and you can't get it in a sock. However, the tin can generate a pretty effective injury both up close and at a distance. Only add mayonnaise if you want to avoid a 'blood' wound. Summer's great in the UK. It's the same as winter - about 15 to 17 centigrade (much better than German fahrenheit setting zero against some pathetic concoction of ammonium chloride) and it's grey. They joy is in the people. Brits are really fun, especially in summer. Always a smile and a pat on the bum.

I'm really pleased that it's working, justifies my faith in people. I was kind of worried it would have been abused and vandalised by dickheads.

I think the implication was that sensible people would stay out of politics, rather than sensible people wouldn't be interested in voting. Targeting a man's family in his home, harrassing his wife, kids and neighbours would be a pretty good incentive for mature sensible people with important abilities and vital skills to stay out of politics to the disadvantage of the country. This is bullying and intimidation, not protest.

Tragically BBB, that one is strange but not true. :( They're different from mammals in the sense that the waste pipes for both the kidneys and the intestines use the same pop hole, but the intestines have the same basic function using gut flora that have a gaseous by-product. When the gas pressure exceeds the elastic strength of the cloaca muscle, the result must inevitably be a fart.

Haha - isn't it just a base approach to homosexuality by making uncomfortable mirthless jokes about it? I'd forget about it DJKQ.

Agreed with UDT - under no circumstances should your cousin just not turn up. If he wants to retain his JSA it must be clear that the employer made the decision, not him.

To get really excited about Taormina, watch The Big Blue before you go....

I can't quite imagine how you get a butterfly roof onto a Victorian terraced house without it looking ridiculous, nor why you would want to put it there.

I'm guessing they get rejected initially because they demonstrate all the aesthetic intelligence of sawing your own foot off just to be different. They then get passed on appeal on the grounds that if it's that important to you then go for your life. We all know that if everyone had a butterfly roof you'd want a hip and gable one. ;-)

Plain english is very overrated. Whither then the nuance, the elegance, the bloom of a creative metaphor? Whhither Alan Partridge? Cattle on bikes.

There's a mix of issues here, but I agree that a union would in general help with legal enquiries. However, in this case since he is still in his probation period, he almost definitely hasn't got a hope of retaining his job through legal activity. That doesn't mean he has to resign (and he shouldn't do so, because of the potential impact on his welfare options). Even a union when faced with inevitable job cuts will opt for a 'LIFO' solution - last in first out. That means he'd be one of the first for the chop with or without a union. I hope nobody thinks this is an 'us against the fat cats' scenario. It sounds to me that by cutting hours first, and only then looking at cutting headcount, this company is doing its best to keep as many people in employment as possible. By the sounds of this, and the bollocks spoken by the 'manager' that his experience is more impacted by having an idiot boss talking bollocks rather than company policy. Remember, no amount of union belligerence can save a business that is failing, they can only accellerate its demise.

Taormina, Isola Bella and Etna

It's like being ravaged by a dead sheep where UDT is involved.

There seems to be some confusion on this thread regarding the decision that people think they can influence? It's not possible to select what store you want in this location, that's a commercial decision between the landlord and the lessee. There can be influence on the planning decision to extend the building, remove parking spots, alter the time or regularity of deliveries, or increase residential accommodation. Likewise, if there are problems with the carwash, that's a problem for the authorities and the carwash - not the landlord of the Iceland building. Existing regulations regarding the carwash should be enforced if it's impacting on the local community. This thread seems to be using the planning laws as a proxy for what is actually a war between ageing conservatives (old people who don't want the world to change because their future is behind them) and youthful progressives (young people who would prefer to create a new future which reflects changing society rather than rot in the decaying past of a bygone impoverished era).

A good moment, but not a particularly impressive performance!

One common problem was the word special followed by 'ist' as it contains a commonly used supplement for erectile dysfunction.

East Fife Four Forfar Fife.