ruffers

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here, no crime has yet taken place. If a ticket > inspector is assaulted, the police should be > involved - that is the correct use of them. But > having them manning each and every mobile ticket > inspection 'just in case' and acting as the train > operating company's heavies is not. > They don't man each and every one, where did that come from?

To be fair today they looked bothered, more so than for a while I thought.

I like it as a building but wish it wasn't there. There's great views from it, but it blocks even more views.

This is interesting http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/da100b36-021e-11df-8b56-00144feabdc0.html Managers make no difference, the team who pays the highest wages wins the league. Come on City!

tomchance Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huh, to think I believed the crew when, having > asked, they said they were filming a horror > movie! > > Not a comment on the cooking, I assume. It's all in the edit!

eater81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A couple of rather predictable responses to my > post, > > Bob sarcastically states: > " I agree with Eater. > > How many innocent law-abiding herb-smoking, > pill-munching, G-drinking, nitrous-inhaling, > coke-snorting, mdma-dabbing, mephedrone-bombing > perfectly respectable citizens will fall foul of > this underhand tactic?" > > I believe he is trying to infer that people who do > such things are not respectable citizens. Do you? I don't think whether they're respectable or not is the point, the point is they're not innocent if they're carrying a prohibited substance, possession is against the law for a number of things as we all know. You can be respectable without being innocent!

With one of those hand held readers I assume.

JustinSmith Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Taper, > > I am sure that you will not have the same view if > you look at the mountain of evidence against the > cholesterol hypothesis. It is simply not possible > for cholesterol to cause heart disease. > > I can not understand how you can come to the > conclusion that the "benefit" of statins outweighs > the risks. As I said before, studies have shown > the increased risk for diabetes associated with > statins to be the same magnitude as any reduction > in deaths from all causes. The link you provided > was related to a study that I have already > discussed in a previous post. Again, when you look > at the actual data, it is clear that statins do > increase the risk for diabetes. And this is before > we consider the large amount of evidence showing > significant other serious adverse effects > associated with statins. > > Now, even if we imagine for a second that statins > do not have these serious adverse effects (and > they most certainly do). The latest meta-analysis > showed that the reduction in deaths from all > causes is around 0.6% for most people. Surely we > must be able to do better than this! Surely the > hundreds of millions of pounds (total cost may be > ?2 billion per year) that we spend on statins > could be spent on something else that would reduce > this risk by more than 0.6%. > > And remember that we have no idea if this 0.6% > benefit is maintained over more than 6 years. We > are being asked to take statins for several > decades but pharmaceutical companies have not > published any data to show the effect over the > longer-term. > > The flawed focus on cholesterol-lowering is merely > sustaining an industry and is preventing us from > finding new ways to have a much bigger impact on > cardiovascular death rates. > > I posted earlier the latest heart disease figures > showing that cholesterol-lowering simply does not > reduce the risk for heart disease. > > Justin Smith Relating to the bit I've boldened Justin I have a question. There seems to be a balance of sorts between the increased risk of diabetes and reduction in deaths, am I reading that right? I'd rather have diabetes than be dead so that seems a positive, no?

Is that 10% of the increase or 10% of the whole thing? ;-)

Given how many people were worried about car parking problems in the run up to the opening of this Sainsburys I'd say they may have just been reflecting the concerns of local residents...

Something like that!

And a good way to understand better how your bike handles as well.

Doesn't this bit at the bottom of the quote kinda answer that question? "William Jackson Senior Health and Safety Consultant Chartered Member of The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health"

Is it mackerel? ;-)

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They may be dealing.................... Attracting a lot of attention for that I'd have thought!

We had a similar situation a while back and the girl concerned had come up with a similar postcode to her own and changed a word in the address. How do I know? I googled her. Try it.

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have a dozen or so redwings pecking at > everything that looks like food in the garden, > they are similar to a thrush but with an orangey > red flash along the side. Thanks for the ID - they just passed through at the back of our house.

Waiting area and not room? Ah, all good then.

Agreed, why's a waiting room needed? If we are desperate to spend money on the platforms then I'd be going for the option of more shelters from the rain on the away from London platform. Tend to think though that, again on that side, the steps and access could do with being improved as much more of a priority.

Roads absolutely fine as long as common sense used on icey bits.

Do they sell popcorn in Sainsburys?

.. by which I don't mean the number of posts, but the loading times. Only this site. Has there been some change? 'Upgrade'? Just plain busy?

Probably not.. ;-)

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the reference to being in "a difficult > situation" needs more explanation than the act of > giving out KFC. What does this statement mean if > made by an white Australian surrounded by black > West Indian cricket fans? City fan in the middle of United fans. Spurs in Arsenal. England in Germany. It could just mean that the colour of skin is irrelevant?

I was all set to steam in as I have a general opinion that Australia is a bit racist but, having watched the ad, I don't think it's meant that way. More US interpreting something through their own values, racist in the eye of the American beholder.