Ladymuck

(Late) Confirmation: bike chain on right (Can't believe I actually went and checked this - LOL)!

Ha ha...I've been cycling for about 25 years and I can't remember! Bike in locked shed at mo...but will try and remember to check later on when I go out LOL! Watch this space... oh my Lord...this forum...

Eeeee-wwwwwww :-S

Why aren't you hard at work you naughty skiving Gooner you!? xx

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >These > legs, all three of them, were squeaky clean. I > checked. You checked?!!! LOL! PS: leg tends not to "catch" the chain as do trousers. However, should it do so - one quick rub gets rid of grubbiness. *still laughing*

Probably a cyclist LB - I do it all the time (avoids bike chain grease on trousers!).

A forum friend PMed me this morning to ask where was the Victoria. I didn't have a clue, so I googled by typing in "The Victoria in Dulwich"...and this came up... ...clever eh... Don't suppose Admin could make this a sticky? (Please?xx)

georgia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes in September they will be back - unless anyone > else would like to organise them before then? No - we liked it when you did all the organising:))...so efficiently too. And just for the record, I miss them too Georgia.

Ah! Just as well I asked - I did have the completely wrong end of the stick! Thank you for clarifying Quids. Well in that case, I may as well wait for the Emergency Budget on Tuesday - no point in trying to second guess at this stage. I suspect that those of us who can still afford to do so, are going to be needing a couple of stiff drinks in order to escape from the horror of it though. We shall see.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the squeeze on welfare will largely be > means tested benefits and so will effect the > middle class far more than the poorest. Quids, did you mistakenly type "means tested" instead of "non-means tested" benefits? Or, put another way, did you mean to type "non-means tested"? It's just that you suggest that, as the cuts are to impact on mainly "means tested" benefits, that it is - as a consequence - the middle class that are going to take the hit? Surely it is the poorest who are going to lose out as it is they who succeed with such claims (on the grounds of lack of means). Currently, the better off usually fail the tests for means tested benefits and are therefore not eligible anyway. Just clarifying before I post a response. (Apologies if I have completely got the wrong end of the stick here:-S).

vinceayre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >Give the new people a > chance at least before they are ousted. They > really cat f*ck it up much more than labour has. Of course they can! If all the proposed cuts go ahead, (to me) it seems reasonably foreseeable that further unemployment will follow. Furthermore, given that it is those at the lower end of the socioeconomic heap that use our welfare/public services the most, it also follows that they are likely to be the hardest hit.

I think buses should be banned from bus lanes. ;-)

Oh it was all a bit mountain out of molehill...something to do with some MP claiming for his moat to be cleared. Rumour has it that a high profile Tory Toff may be buying an up and coming football team - Milfwall - and that he may be seeking to subsidise this purchase via the MPs' expenses system. I don't know, they'll be claiming against the services of their domestic staff next.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...and the dirty > underwear left on the floor. Presumably that's a euphemism for the expenses scandal.

Anyone want to buy an igloo?:)) http://www.east-haven.k12.ct.us/eha/grade4/nativeampeaslee/inuites/Igloo_outside.jpg

My...patch of...ahem...lawn is organic and wildlife friendly complete with weeds wild flowers and abundant insect life which in turn supply a fundamental life-support system for birds and other creatures. *"Weedol" indeed, the cheeky monkey*

PS: I have actually smartened it up (a bit) since your last visit you cheekiest of cheeky monkeys. *tries not to laugh*

SteveT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have seen your front garden Ladymuck and would > never in a million years recognise it from the > description you have made. > I seem to remember expressing the view when I > first saw it, resembling a piece of "set-a-side" > those pieces of land that farmers got grants for, > for not cultivating them. > Unintentional wildflower meadow is called > 'guilding the lily' for a piece of ground > neglected since the builders packed up and left > the site in the nineties. > Car and wheely bins are a positive advantage in > that they obscure this scene of general > dereliction. > I think you might make a good living in real > estate with such a Shakespearian turn of phrase, > thus lightening the burden from the broad > shoulders of your capable, though long suffering > spouse. *plots revenge*

*salivates*

Unintentional wildflower meadow (where lawn should be), beautiful hawthorn tree, corner dedicated to (intentional) wildflower meadow (poppies, oxeye daises, cornflowers etc.), and a croscosmia corner. Plus the usual crap: car, brown and green wheelies, and 3 blue recycling boxes.

Oh Jeremy, I am not sure whether or not you are being serious, but that is SO funny.

Just one teeny little thought has occurred to me...supposing (and please, no offence intended), but just supposing AG (assuming he is alive and well) really doesn't want his parents to know where he is etc? It happens. I mean what are his rights given that he would be 16+ now? Or is it the case that parents have an overriding right to know until such time as he reaches 18 years of age? (Genuine question - does anyone know answer?)

"...may be interested" DC? The article took many of the words straight out of my mouth! Interesting blog...I've bookmarked that one - thanks! Regrettably the Labour Party aren't in power...perhaps Cameron/Clegg might fall out soon...;-)

On the proposed Government spending cuts, Brendan Barber (TUC General Secretary) comments that: "This is a recipe for deeper economic trouble, growing poverty and inequality and, ultimately, wider deficits and panicky lenders. We may conclude some months hence not only that the pain resulted in no gain but that it led to even further pain". Full article here. Is he being unnecessarily pessimistic? I am not so sure. Given that the proposed cuts will probably affect the poorest/most vulnerable to a greater extent, coupled with the fact that they may well send unemployment rising, shouldn't the emphasis perhaps be shifted more towards raising taxation? I would have thought that most would prefer to work/pay more tax rather than be unemployed. No?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >That then > gives two days for the squad (captained by Lady M) > to decide the winner. Oh my Gawd! PMSL.