Ladymuck

karter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sh!t, my screen has now frozen.:-S Mine too!

BAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH.... Testing Testing

karter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cos i have a scary face, luv. Of course! Silly me!! @ Loz: Getting old? ha ha ha I remember her too BTW...I think she was great (is she still alive?)

So why the scary face then? BAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH *wails at top of voice*

No - nobody loves me...NOBODY....BAAAAHHHHHHHHH *sniff*

OK, so it looks as though they have been brought back from the brink of extinction. But what is the moral of this scary episode in CPFC's history? How differently should things be done in future? What have we learnt, if anything? Should, e.g., football clubs (partially at least) be placed within the hands of its supporters (as is the case with Barcelona for example)? So many questions.

I was just TESTING! You know I love you really! Hee Hee

Oh Gawd!

TESTING TESTING! Hello Mick Mac! You stink...ha ha ha...

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where would you get the extra ?15bn a year without > a hike to 20% LadyM? Not easy making tough > decisions in tough times... > Sarah Lucas... I agree that it cannot be easy for any politician at present...I certainly wouldn't wish to be in their shoes. However, I cannot help but feel that the coalition could have re-introduced Labour's tax on bank bonuses and made it a little more permanent - say for a further term of 2 years. Regarding the new VAT rate of 20%, I would have been much happier had specific provision been put in place to compensate the very poorest for the additional hardship this will undoubtedly cause them - an increase in certain means-tested benefits perhaps?. Has such a measure even been considered? Another way the coalition could have collected extra cash would have been to amend the current law on non-domiciled individuals to ensure that such individuals pay a fairer (i.e. larger) share of tax in the UK. Just a couple of examples which spring to mind - though, my maths being rubbish, I couldn't tell you whether these measures, if implemented, would raise the ?15 billion a year required. Any accountants/tax lawyers out there? And...erm...who the heck is Sarah Lucas? (Presumably you meant Caroline?)

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...and, as I said before if we, the country, go > bust they'll be far worse off than 2.5% down but > lets keep it all 'equal' for the sake of > 'fairness'... Yes...yes...Quids...I am not disputing the fact that, should the country "go bust" we will all be worse off...yada yada yada. (I am trying my darndest not to think of that potentiality, to be honest). My point is simply that, when George Osbourne made his recent budget speech, whilst he conceded that overall we would all have to pay something towards reducing this deficit (quite rightly in my opinion), he also said that the lowest paid would pay proportionally less than the highest paid. Furthermore, he actually stated: "it is a progressive budget". That, to my mind anyway, is (and I am being generous here) a misrepresentation of the facts. As shown above, the budget contains several measures which are nothing short of regressive. This is bad news for the poorest/most vulnerable members of our society. Moreover, it has the potential to increase the income equality gap even further - and that cannot be right. It is manifestly unfair. But hey, let's get our coshes out and beat the poor further into the ground...keep them in their place!

Well, haven't really commented on the measures within the Budget as Mick Mac has started a "Budget" thread which is going strong. However, I would just repeat here that I believe that, contrary to what George Osbourne said, the effect of this budget is that it is regressive. From the Independent: Mr Osborne has added to the burden on the rich, but only by about 1 per cent of their average income, bringing the total loss in their income as a result of current tax and benefit measures to about 7.5 per cent. Thus the Chancellor has placed about two-and-a-half times the burden on the poorest as he has on the richest ? a loss of 2.5 per cent against one of 1 per cent. Full article here. Sure, few of us will escape it's effect, but it will be those with the least who will be the hardest hit. Bad news for the poorest I think (and for fairness/equality generally).

Well, for what it's worth I too happen to agree with DC. Contrary to what George Osbourne said, the effect of this budget is that it is regressive. From the Independent: Mr Osborne has added to the burden on the rich, but only by about 1 per cent of their average income, bringing the total loss in their income as a result of current tax and benefit measures to about 7.5 per cent. Thus the Chancellor has placed about two-and-a-half times the burden on the poorest as he has on the richest ? a loss of 2.5 per cent against one of 1 per cent. Full article here. Sure, few of us will escape it's effect, but it will be those with the least who will be the hardest hit. Bad news for the poorest I think (and for fairness/equality generally). *ducks*

Blimey everybody...I am actually speechless (and I can't often say that!) Thank you all so much for all your good/kind/cheeky wishes. Also big thanks to all of you who sent me birthday wishes via PM. Really nice. Cheers all:)-D *raises glass*

Oh VERY funny SS and Quids! *keels over with laughter*

When shopkeepers say to you: "are you by any chance xxxxxxx from the EDF?"...because you sound just like her:-S! This has happened to me 3 times now. And all have been spot on! Weird!

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 400 ...you sly puss! (6)

cate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I used an Oyster on a bus and it wouldn't > register. Tried a few times. The driver told > me it was OK to board. When I got off in ED I > checked at a newsagent and it had deducted the > money. Wonder how often that happens? So the > driver knew his machine wasn't working. Cate, Was the fare deduction made once only? Or, "a few times"?

Moos, I had a travelcard and I had my receipt on me...I still got fined etc... I really wouldn't risk not touching in again.

My advice would be to touch in every time...I had a travel card...(see above)...this should have covered me for an infinite number of journeys (which in theory means that it isn't quite so necessary to touch in as after a certain point the cost is capped...how wrong was I)...the rest is history...

Also... I recently got fined too (plus had to pay again for a travel card, plus an additional 40p)... Paid the newsagents for a travel card (on Oyster)...cost ?5.80 off peak. Approached ED station, heard train - legged it up platform (without touching in) - remember, there are no barriers to remind you. Got to London Bridge...on the spot fine PLUS, because I hadn't touched in at ED, the whole of my ?5.80 had got wiped out AND card showed a minus of 40p. I was well pissed off! Moral of the story - bike it! (And I would normally have done so had I not been meeting friends for drinks). So, total cost of travel card that day: ?5.80 + ?20 + 5.80 + 40p = ?32. Would have been cheaper via Ryanair.(6)

Weegee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So you'll see me around midnight...wobbling along > back up our road !!! *bolts front door, slips on chain, locks mortice locks, pulls down grilles*

Weegee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> Ladymuck......your neighbours son was riding his > bike last night... > > He saw me in my car and said to his mate > > 'Oi theres Weegee from East Dulwich Forum' > > Ooh to be famous!!! Oh Famous One, Are you going to Mick Mac's drinks on Friday? *bows and scrapes to Weegee*

karter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't take any notice LG. LM, why arn't you hard > at work on the organic veg trail then??? I am...got wireless innit;-)

Ladygooner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ladymuck Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why aren't you hard at work you naughty skiving > > Gooner you!? xx > > I am multi tasking - switching between the footie > and the tennis! I knows you is some multi-tasking lady, innit. Bet you is knitting a couple of jumpers and making some coffee too.:))