Ladymuck

Weird

Narnia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have you tried fisking? Good one Narnia! Works for me...I don't look a day over ahem *2. And I have masses of hair - want some Huguenot?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm obstreperous, cantakerous and just plain > bloody difficult Really? You only forty? You sure about that? *legs it*

So nobody has any comments on the new rights afforded to ethnic minority groups, transsexuals, breastfeeding mothers, gays and lesbians, women, those who suffer socio-economic disadvantage, the disabled, pregnant women, people over a certain age and people with religious and philosophical beliefs? No-one? Anybody out there...on Planet Earth? On Pandora?

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >I worked > it out the other day I've probably smoked half a > million cigarettes in my lifetime. I'm intrigued...what possessed you to do that?

I wasn't going to comment...but... I used to have asthma...the trigger was cigarette smoke...don't get it any more, which means that I now spend much more time in pubs ::o. I have banned smoking from my house too (though I do permit the poor little poppets to use the garden - snow or no snow).

HAL9000 Wrote: ----------------------------------------------- ...but the turbines were so > badly damaged they had to be scraped. Scraped or scrapped?

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can I swap frogspawn for newts? we have newt free > pond. I do not wish to disturb the newts at present. However, I could let you have a newt or two later on in the season. The only thing is, I do not know whether my newts are the protected ones - because if they are, to move them would be illegal. Can you tell the difference between them? As for frog spawn, we have some every year but, each year, the herons and foxes manage to find our tiny garden and scoff the lot between them. So, maybe some newborn froglets might be useful?

Well, having scanned through the new Equality Act 2010 (?the Act?), it would seem that the Labour Party does appear to be demonstrating a degree of political will to address many of the various inequalities which persist in the UK. The purpose of this brand new Statute is to help reduce the gap between rich and poor ? thus creating a more equal society overall. A huge chunk of the Act basically consists of a consolidation of existing anti-discrimination legislation ranging from the first Equal Pay Act 1970, right through to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and everything in between. Whilst this means that, as regards those Statutes, the law will remain unchanged, the fact that they are now all under one roof means that accessing them will be a great deal easier (cheaper lawyers' fees?). So, what's new in this Act? Well, it's aims are clear: to tackle discrimination (though how workable some of the measures will be in practice remains to be seen. I predict quite a bit of protracted case law before the law is made certain - though I hope not). There is no doubt in my mind that some of the measures are as bold as some of President Obama's and, I suspect, it won't be long before some provoke debate and controversy. The Act contains a lot of stuff, but below are but a few of what, I consider, to be some of the most interesting measures for implementation. Government departments, local and health authorities etc. will now have to consider how to deal with those who suffer socio-economic disadvantage. In an attempt to reduce the pay difference between men and women, public bodies comprised of 150 or more staff will be required to publish any gender pay gap. Private and voluntary sector employers with at least 250 employees will be under a similar obligation (though this will be on a voluntary basis to begin with). Pregnant women and new mothers will receive additional protection so that, (e.g.), mothers are able to breastfeed their children without (e.g) being requested to leave (e.g.) shops. ? In an endeavour to increase the number of women in Parliament, political parties will be permitted to use all-women shortlists until 2030. In order to make workplaces more ethnically diverse, employers will be allowed to utilise positive discrimination as a means of hiring someone from an under-represented ethnic group. In a bid to assist the disabled, disabled people who live in rented accommodation will now have the right to have reasonable adjustments made to communal areas, though the cost will need to be borne by them. It will also become unlawful for employers to question potential employees on disability/health issues prior to offering them a job (though exceptions will apply). Public bodies will now have to consider the needs of people with different religious and philosophical beliefs when planning/providing services. E.g. they may need to contemplate whether or not to provide halal meals as part of a "meals on wheels" service.? 2006 saw the banning of age discrimination at work. The new Act now stretches this to (for example) shops, hospitals, and the financial services. ? The Act also imposes a new duty on public bodies to consider the needs of people of all ages when planning/providing services (e.g. children, teenagers etc). Ditto the needs of, e.g., members of the gay and lesbian community. Transsexuals are also afforded additional rights. It will now also be illegal for private clubs to discriminate against members/guests on the grounds of their sex, religion or beliefs, because pregnant or a new mother, or because they are transsexual. Note: discrimination on the grounds of race, sexual orientation or disability is already unlawful. As alluded to above, I believe this Act to be a fairly brave move. Will it be enough though? And what challenges/criticisms will it generate?

HAL9000 Wrote: --------------------------------------------- >...We're unlikely to see > much, if any, ash or dust at ground level for the > time being... Thank you for that HAL9000. Newts may carry on mating without fear of contamination of their environment.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd rather pull both eyes out and fry them. Especially delicious coated in wasabi.

From where I am standing, I am rather enjoying the absence of the usual noise pollution caused by aeroplanes flying over. Must be a pain for those wishing to get somewhere though. Also, I haven't seen any evidence of volcanic dust on cars/windows etc. - yet. Should I hang my washing out? What about the pond, should I cover it over? It's packed full of mating newts.

No No No None - couldn't give a toss - am not voting for any of the main 3.

"Poor boy"!!!???? He deserves every tomato lobbed at him. Besides, I believe he's rather relishing all the attention - don't you? *double hee hee*

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM! I wouldn't have thought you of all ppl were > into THAT kinda thing! *gobsmacked* You should try it. May I suggest that you partake only in the Drawing Room as that's where you'll achieve the biggest thrill. And if you can manage to perform it on an inordinately long post - preferably on one of Huguenot's threads, well then we are talking Royal Icing on Exquisite Cake...the ultimate fisk!;-)

Yes, I've noticed that too ????. Strange, given that they've been banging on about equality/inequality for the last year. To be honest, I don't really care what they call it - so long as they (the politicians/lawmakers) actually do something about it (the inequality/unfairness). It's good to see that (whatever they choose to call it) they are now acknowledging (on a regular basis) that something does need to be done. A step in the right direction I think. Let's see what happens.

Yes, this is exactly what I have been trying to say HAL9000 - but not quite as succinctly!

A friend of mine used to be (one of) her Housekeepers - so I know many "secrets"...

?QUI?N ES GRITAR? Pero s? me tomo su punto.

But MP, I haven't a clue to what you are referring in your last post precisely because you haven't pressed the "quote this message" button. Indeed, I now need to go back...far more irritating (to my mind). *lobs a tomato at MP too!*

Mick Mac, you are the devil...but a very funny devil. *hopes LB doesn't see the laughter*

> If ladymuck is referring to Declan then that would > certainly be the case. No, I was referring to Swagger. In any event, Declan's posts remain (under a different name) - Swagger's have vanished.

Cheer up grump...err...Huguenot, this has turned out to be (I think) a rather entertaining thread. Personally, I find breaking up long paragraphs and responding that way useful. To my mind, the practice also imparts order and neatness (though clearly, you - and others - do not agree). I shall attempt to try and cut down (a bit) seeing as it annoys some...but don't expect complete cessation! As for your comment: "I'm not sure that I misinterpret at all. I think I get it absolutely spot on most of the time. The fact that I can't 'prove' it doesn't make it any less accurate., my automatic response was to burst out laughing (I found it funny because it is so typical of you), but I am now wondering whether...oh to hell with it... *lobs another tomato at Huguenot*

Hello Admin, I notice that a particular forumite has completely vanished without trace. I.e. even that poster's previous posts have disappeared - which makes the threads which previously contained them appear a little nonsensical in places. On attempting a search: BLANK! I.e. no message in red informing me that this poster had been "deactivated". It's as though they were never here... Is this a new "thing"? In days of old, if e.g. a poster received a ban (which, I presume, is what has happened), their previous posts remained for posterity - not anymore it seems. Am I imagining things?

The Chair Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LuLu Too Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm with *Bob* on this one. > > And Fisking makes my eyes go funny... > > > > What's happening in The Drawing Room? > > Surely this thread should be lounged by now?! > > > Agreed. Too much silly behaviour. I've just seen this! A blatant "fisk" if ever I saw one! From our esteemed Chair too! *shakes head and tutts twice*