Ladymuck

LOL DC!

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And it's not just women who like a nice pair of > shoes. > > *ahem* LOL!!!!!

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But there is just no escaping the > fact that they are fabulous, sexy, joy inducing, > life affirming boxes of pure happiness. Sexy? Joy inducing? Life affirming boxes of pure happiness? LB, as much as I adore you dear friend...I have to say that, on this occasion, you are OFF YOUR BLOOMIN TROLLEY!:)) *falls about laughing*

Oh shit!

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, you can't assume we're all gonna say shoes. Damn right! I don't own any. They are impractical, uncomfortable, ridiculous, and vastly over-priced (in my not so humble opinion).:)) *expects a barrage of heels to come flying*

I always wear a helmet. I wear gloves too - those phalanges and meta-carpals will appreciate the added protection in the event that they should hit the ground. I am under no legal obligation to do so, but for me, this too is a no-brainer.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so just throwing this out here...what would you do > (ladies) if you discovered that your new boss was > a 'starer' even when the top is not low cut? Is > the solution to wear a really low-cut top as they > might try better to avoid looking? Oh my dear Katie7283736. I sincerely hope this is not happening to you (though it looks as though it might be). "Staring" alone would make me feel awkward, but staring at my boobs would make me feel extremely uncomfortable to the extent that I would have to say something. Not an easy situation I would imagine - (men generally don't tend to look at me LOL!). However, as your boss is new, I would definitely call him aside and ask him if he is aware of his conduct. I would also alert him to the fact that his actions are making you feel uncomfortable (I am presuming you are not happy about the gawping). I think that the fact that he is new gives you a slight advantage - so nip it in the bud now. Good luck. xx

White chocolate Liquorice toffees Coffee Coconut ice cream The EDF

Huh?

Applespider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But squeezing > down narrow gaps for the sake of a few seconds is > a bit loopy. I agree Applespider...I always shudder when I see that.

Thought the link for the Cycle Hire Scheme might be useful here.

...though they might probably only be met with Caveat Emptor if they tried.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well now he needs to do history too. Because his > utter lack of knowledge of the problems of > Northern Pakistan's mountain areas (and indeed the > problems that every Pakistanni president has in > dealing with it) is what was so truly stupid about > the comments he made. And geography! So, that's history, politics and geography. Don't they teach these subjects at private school or is it really all Latin, Greek and Hebrew? Sounds as though his parents ought to be asking for a refund of his tuition fees LOL!

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just think he doesn't think things through > properly before speaking. Either that or he needs to go back to school in respect of history and politics. Apparently he gained a "first" in Politics at Oxford.:-S Just goes to show...

100

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Add to that his recent gaffes... Gaffes? Or Freudian Slips? hmmmmmmm

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cameron came out to say it won't now be scrapped. Yes I know. I laughed when I saw the U-turn (again reminded me of the original Milk Snatcher's "this Lady is not for turning" comment all those years ago). What were the coalition thinking of? Still, the press had a field day...he he

Well, actually, I was waiting for Quids to return vis a vis The Milk Snatcher. Funny that milk snatching is back in the news though.

Interestingly, Cameron's plans to reform social housing by reducing the security of tenure of tenants might actually have another effect - that of massively reducing the right to buy a property under Thatcher's Right to Buy Scheme. This is because, currently, tenants must have lived in their rented property for at least five years in order to acquire the right to purchase "their" property under the Scheme. If Cameron's proposals go ahead, tenancies will be less secure in that they will be shorter. This means that it will be more difficult for a tenant to acquire the right to buy - i.e. to hit the minimum 5-year period. I don't believe that Cameron's scheme intended this outcome, but it may well be an unintended result of it.

Yes, one minute it was about The Iron Lady, and within the blink of an eye we'd jumped to the Iron Curtain.

Ting! Did you hear that? The sound of that penny finally dropping. For you all Thanks for the tip Jah. LOL!!!

Weegee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We passed you yesterday afternoon , in our > aeroplane. You were waiting at the bus stop near > Shauns DIY Could have given me a lift...that aeroplane would have got me to my destination in no time! As it was, I was very late. Are Franster and the Franster-Weegeeletts going to be contributing to the noise pollution tomorrow too?

Oh Gawd - pea brain here! Nope...I haven't twigged whatever it is I am supposed to twig...oh dear... Clues?:-$

woofmarkthedog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ooooo > > > > Sub zero -6 > > Well, what an interesting call Narn's however, > this is W**F Lotto we are playing here & I'm a > stickler for the rules > > ( and i'm having to put you "into Nidd" for that > illegal call ) > > > *rips silver duct tape of top lip* > > > W**F You didn't disappoint Willy-Woof! That's told him!!!! *rolling on floor laughing hysterically*

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > btw, there's nothing in the small print to say > what prize we will win if we pick the lucky > number. Good point Katie273737! (PS you still on-line? LOL)