Ladymuck

kpc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FIFA explain this in very clear terms in the > following instructional video: > > Law 11 Explained > > See how far you can make it through the video > before reaching for the revolver/vodka/referee's > whistle. Jesus Wept! There are no pictures...no demos...fat lot of good that... *grabs revolver*

matthew123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Simply put at the point the ball is passed to a > player, he is offside if he was in the opposition > half at the moment of the pass AND the pass is > made by a team mate AND the pass is forward AND > there are less than 2 opposing players between him > and the goal line. Otherise the player is onside. Matthew, you would never make a special needs teacher...that is too complex for a pea brain! Gordon Bennett!

You are on good form this morning Narnia. Mick and Mac sounds a bit like Bill and Ben...were they a couple? *thinks back and scratches head*

DJKQ...so, is it OK to keep the ball (George Best style) and dribble across the entire pitch and shoot even if there is no-one between the opposing side's goalkeeper and you? Narnia...very funny (I am definitely not a man!). And talking about shoes is guaranteed to send me to sleep. And a red card if off side? That can't be right...and seems harsh given that it seems easy to accidently fall foul of the rule.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It's actually a ploy I think to keep undesirables > out of the borough. But that's subjective surely? LOL!!!

Simple explanation required suitable for brain the size of a pea. Let the explanations begin - please. Thank you.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ladymuck? Do shoes, shoppers and a purse help you > on this? lol Nope! Brain size of a pea...

And who is "we"? B)

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...worse still they seem > to be allowed to act on that view. I've been thinking about this. I am wondering if Barnet's proposals could in fact be in breach of the Equality Act 2010 where socio-economic disadvantage is an issue. This Statute specifically provides that specified public bodies, when making strategic decisions such as deciding priorities and setting objectives, to consider how their decisions might help to reduce the inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage. Such inequalities could include inequalities in education, health, housing, crime rates, or other matters associated with socio-economic disadvantage. The duty applies to the listed public bodies, which have strategic functions ? these include Government departments, local authorities and NHS bodies. Might imposing onerous requirements such as "getting a job" or "doing voluntary work", not be seen as discriminatory against the unemployed and therefore contrary to the duty to to consider how [The London Borough of Barnet's] decisions might help to reduce inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage? The first bit of case law involving this Act?

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Estate agents are three a penney on LL. > > > Not a single laugh...... That's funny though...

Sorry - can't resist this HB... Whiskey please...tis what Whiskey Women drink

Refresh my memory...was this to do with an on-line form which some of us filled in a while back? (Sorry - early onset dementia!). I can vaguely remember something.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi they're mine, > cheers > > Ray Ban Yeah? I bet you are going to tell me that yours were black with tinted lenses? LOL!

Actually, you've prompted me to take a really good look... ...with magnifying glass...can just about see the words "Ray Ban" I know nothing about sunglasses...are they as expensive as...er...Channel? Or shall I just stick them on my scarecrow at my allotment?

No markings whatsoever... ...other than grubby lenses Channel...very funny!

Well they weren't moving!

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Poverty isn't just about the unemployed - it's > about the millions of low waged workers too. That > gap is a serious problem. The latest figures on income inequality.

Well, let's just thank our lucky stars that we don't all live in the London Borough of Barnet. Helping those in the greatest of need? Hmmmmm....I think not...

On Abbotswood Road pavement.

@ Quids: ner ner ner ner ner

500

Pleasure karter. Have fun on your new wheels. Sleep? What's that then? *rubs bags under eyes*

Yes it was a fun evening...we laughed A LOT...nice to catch up with the "usual" faces and fabulous to meet Katie1997, Helpmababobaoabaoabbonabob, Pablo and (last but definitely not least) Dubluke. Mick Mac, am SO pleased you managed to stay the course;-). Thanks for arranging Daizie. xxx

Yep, the coalition appears to be showing very little concern for the unemployed or for unemployment in the future. Very shortsighted in my opinion.

You are welcome Katie1997. I've been cycling for a LONG time. However, when I first started I was in my late 30s (I had never been taught as a child). I taught myself but could only cycle with confidence with the saddle positioned so that my feet were flat on the ground when stationary. This is far too low - I didn't realise this till many years later (when excruciating pain in my knees forced me to the physios). I raised the seat - and within a few weeks the pain was completely gone. No pain now.