Ladymuck

victoria_foster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so I learned all this by buying a UV marker for my > child So where would you recommend marking a child? *legs it*

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FFS you lot. > You are so up your own ar&es sometimes - all I did > was ask questions for a few people. > I turn up at meetings. I care. Up yours! *looks aghast* You have a point PR...you went to the trouble of attending the meeting. I fully intended to go but never actually got around to it. I guess I didn't care enough. In that respect you are a bigger person than me.

Ha ha Mick Mac - we have just X-posted...but I agree, this is all about the approach. I too have received excellent care under Kings (and still do).

Bellenden Belle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quite frankly, had your question been asked in > public you may have found many people would have > had the opportunity to put forward the alternate > opinion, that this is a worthy cause deserving of > public support and recognition - as has been > demonstrated by this very thread. I don't believe that "this is a worthy cause deserving of public support and recognition" is in dispute. As far as I can gather, it is mainly the approach undertaken by Kings which appears to be fuelling some concern. Your comments interested me though - sufficiently to prompt a quick scan through the thread. To me, it would appear that people's opinions (according to the EDF collective at least) are fairly evenly split: 10 posters are fine with the Trust's method of targetting, 11 are not, and 11 haven't specifically commented either way.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the best place to start is that nobody has a fundamental > 'right' to anything at all. Benefits don't come from government, > they come from other people as a tax upon their hard work... > Either way, taxpayers have a right to be assured > that their charity is being spent wisely, and that > the recipients are deserving. > > This isn't the same thing as 'demonising benefit > recipients'... I agree Huguenot. We are fortunate to live in a country which encompasses a welfare state designed to act as a safety net for the nation's poorest/most vulnerable (out of interest, how does Singapore compare?). The ethos behind the benefit system is that of equal opportunity and a fairer distribution of wealth so that those who are unable to provide for themselves at least receive the basics required for a semi-decent life. It should not be subject to exploitation purely because (e.g.) someone who is able to work lacks the motivation to do so. This is not only unfair to those that do, but it also generates resentment. With regard to "demonising benefit recipients", I think the point DJKQ is making is that there isn't a lot of point whingeing about benefit claimants when jobs aren't there for them to take up in the first place. For the record, I do not believe Katie1997 was "demonising the unemployed". To me her post was clear in that she was referring to "...those that are well and able to work". If the jobs don't exist, then (IMO) they aren't able to work.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ladym...Ladies that lunch, beleive me looking > after kids under 5 is far, far harder then any > work I've ever done...Ladies that > lunch...honestly. Gawd! When I said LTL, I meant in addition to stay at home mums (and dads BTW) not instead of...the point being that, there are quite a few categories of people who shouldn't be included in figures surrounding unemployment...but I have a sneaking suspicion that you knew what I meant all along...so behave! And yes, having looked after my nephews/nieces on the odd weekend...I agree, hard work indeed (as gorgeous as they are, I can't wait to hand them back half the time LOL!!) - I don't know how parents cope!

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > er, a reasonable number are stay at home mums, > even in this day and age. er...yes...and ladies that lunch no doubt and, indeed, anyone who doesn't wish to work (for whatever reason) - that was the point I was trying to make 3 posts back. I don't believe that figures surrounding unemployment should include stay at home mums, full-time students, working benefit claimants etc. It makes for distortion and is misleading. As for the rest of your comment - what are you on about!?

The sly puss who nicks the 100 whilst my back is turned...hmmmmmmmm;-)

Found this on page 8...

Narnia Wrote: -------------------------------------------------- > In this > case though it's like a land where there are > riches promised but you have to wait.............a > long time. That's Nidd fer ya. Oh dear! Sounds as though we are all in Nidd then :-S You then must have been in "special" Nidd. I trust you have now fully recovered.

I think 42 has gone... Oh do pay attention fleabag...

Narnia...what was it like in Nidd?

One thing you aint Brendan is stupid...on the contrary... Good Luck:))

Just pick a couple of numbers Brendan...you can win (real/good) prizes and it's all in a good cause... You can make a donation to the causes if you want...but are not obliged to... The mad dog has worked really hard on this...getting local businesses involved etc...not to mention putting up with the likes of us (well..me...e.g.)...

As someone who makes around 95% of journeys by bike/foot, I guess my experience of buses is not going to be the same as someone who uses them on a regular basis. However I would say, for the 5% of the time that I do use public transport, that it generally serves its purpose well. My main concerns lie with the time that it can take and the cost (hence why I prefer to cycle). As regards the 484 specifically, I have taken to using this service on my football playing days (as I'm too whacked to cycle following a game LOL!). I have found that I can wait from anything up to an hour - Sundays are particularly appalling where a minimum of half an hour's wait is really not unusual. Having said that, I generally only use the service on a Wednesday evening/Sunday afternoon - so make of that what you will.

Well said Mick Mac.

Are students (in full-time education and not seeking work) also included in the unemployment figures? Is there also a presumption that those in receipt of disability benefits are automatically unemployed? Many recipients of disability related benefits work - for example where in receipt of DLA or IIDB. If so, to include them in unemployment statistics would only serve to distort those statistics (IMO).

Nine million? Are you sure? Seems a bit high.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and not even (slightly) jealous about LM's > butterscotch ice-cream from G&B ! Oh no? Well if I told you it was served by the charming W**F-lookalike waiter, would you be jealous then? Albeit everso slightly? (He asked about you BTW ;-)).

yeah...to lucky old me.... You are doing a marvellous job Willy-Woof.

100

Hubby came home singing this...only he is tone-deaf and the only way to get him to stop was to dig this up: Back a Yard. Love this thread Quids.

OK everyone - I have only today seen previous comments vis a vis the hygiene ratings (Lord knows how I missed them in the first place!). Anyway, may I say once and for all, I didn't mean to offend anybody (and it is clear from subsequent posts that I did). I only mentioned the rating as my reason for declining the lovely karter's invitation to attend the CC. So - please - accept my humble apologies. I am delighted to see that you all had a good time though (and that you remain alive - JOKE!!!!!;-)). Seriously, I am genuinely sorry for the obvious offence caused and hope my comment(s) didn't spoil your enjoyment of the evening.:-$ M xx *slaps karter back - HARD*

*head held high* Yes karter. In fact both evenings were lovely...the first at the EDT was fun...lovely to see you and the others. The second at G & B was superb and...ahem...yes, I believe that "hoovered" is the correct verb on this occasion...but someone had to. Glad you had a good time too. x

Dear Admin, I just wanted to say thank you for making the mangy fleabag's Charity Thread a "sticky". You didn't have to, but in the spirit of that mad dog's well intentioned thread, you did. I hope that your course of action will encourage others to play Fleabag's Lottery in the name of two worthy causes. M x