Jump to content

Recommended Posts


Well, the evidence suggests that your lifestyle does not appear to warrant a dishwasher at all. Indeed, I have reasonable cause to believe that you live on Scoop's coconut ice cream



This is a vile and base calumny, and clearly libellous. I had mint choc chip at the weekend (paid for with one of mys sisters, getting my mother in change: still not sure who had the real bargain there :'(). Anyway expect my chap popping around to serve the writ any day now...


The new dishwasher is the dog's bollocks!

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> katie1997 Wrote:

>

> > *rings SCIC VIP hotline to reserve stocks*

>

>

> Ahem!

>

> *couriers Notice to katie1997 in respect of

> infringement of intellectual property primary

> right: unauthorised use of Trademark SCIC*


*respectfully submits application to use SCIC trademark to ladymuck*


I mean....does woof(trade)markthedog have the monopoly on these or what? Y-es I thought so!


Katie1997


Oh dishwashers are great btw, did I mention that Bosch are good?


Edited: Bosch obviously..

SimonM Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is a vile and base calumny, and clearly

> libellous. I had mint choc chip at the weekend...


Given the available data on the now rather famous EDF. My on-line observations constitute "fair comment" in that they were fair and not motivated by malice. Moreover, not only do my observations fall short of being false, they also fail to discredit your reputation (such as it is). Had I referred to you as (but, for want of another example) a "greedy pig" now, that would have been quite another matter:))).


> Anyway expect my chap popping

> around to serve the writ any day now...


Given your manifest lack of evidence, and the fact that your reputation has suffered no damage, it is my submission that you, the Plaintiff, have no case to answer. Notwithstanding this and in an attempt to demonstrate goodwill, I would be prepared to accept a small token from you in return for foregoing a counter-action against you for injury to my feelings which your - rather misguided - initiation of legal proceedings against me have caused to my egg-shell like personality. Under the circumstances, I feel that a double scoop (large) of SCIC(TM) (together with a sample of the mint choc chip) would be appropriate.


> The new dishwasher is the dog's bollocks!


This was never in dispute. And, having now viewed the photograph, remains so. In any event, it is irrelevant as not pertinent to the legal matter at hand.

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought a "pony" was slang for fifty quid? You

> know, like:

>

> I've got a pony in my pocket

> I'll get the suitcase from the

> Cos if you want the best, but you don't ask

> questions

> Then brother, I'm your man

...................::...............

What...


...a load of "pony & trap"



Really....




w**F


>

> No?

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *respectfully submits application to use SCIC

> trademark to ladymuck*





Dear Ms. Katherina Van Der Wotsit,


In consideration of your previous, rather gracious, loan to me of your chauffeur, I would be prepared to permit you to use the trademark SCIC.


I would stress, however, that this act of generosity on my part should not be taken as a precedent for the future - any abuse of which shall result in my immediately seeking an injunction against you with a view to obtaining damages for infringement of registered trade mark and passing off.


Lady Esmerelda Fatima Billington-Jones.

SimonM Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> The new dishwasher is the dog's bollocks!


Plainly both unhygienic and what's more needlessly cruel.

Expect a visit from the RSPCA and the Health & Safety Executive in the near future.

I won't dob you in to the Animal Liberation Front for the moment, Christ no one deserves that.

Actually, this all reminds me of a (terrible) joke...


Woman has to go out...leaves house with her parrot inside.


Meanwhile, man comes along and knocks on door.


Knock Knock


Parrot: who is it?


Man: it's the plumber


Parrot: who is it?


Man: it's the plumber


Parrot: who is it?


Man: IT'S THE PLUMBER!


Parrot: who is it?


Man: jeez...you deaf? It's the plumber.


Parrot: who is it?


Man: IT'S THE F-UCKING PLUMBER!


At which point the plumber has a heart attack, collapses and dies.


[2 hours' later, woman returns home...sees dead man at her door]


Woman: who the hell is this?


Parrot: IT'S THE F-UCKING PLUMBER!

Two wee Scotsmen who cannae reach the doorbell.


Look, I blame the Catholic church, had I not been raised in it, I wouldn't have had access to the monthly Crusade Messenger magazine, which in turn furnished me with this sort of joke.


Though now I think of it, it may have been the secular Whizzer and Chips.


Or Wham! even.

HonaloochieB Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Two wee Scotsmen who cannae reach the doorbell.

>

> Look, I blame the Catholic church, had I not been

> raised in it, I wouldn't have had access to the

> monthly Crusade Messenger magazine, which in turn

> furnished me with this sort of joke.

>

> Though now I think of it, it may have been the

> secular Whizzer and Chips.

>

> Or Wham! even.


Ahem...have I missed something? Where's the rest of the joke? I.e. what happens after:


Two wee Scotsmen who cannae reach the doorbell.

Keep up LadyM.

I said 'Knock knock'.

You said 'Who's there'?

I said 'Two wee Scotsmen who cannae reach the doorbell'

That was the punchline. Not a great or even a good punchline I'll admit.

But blame the Crusade Messenger. Or Whizzer & Chips. Or Wham!


I'm Pontius Pilating this one.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
    • Very sorry to hear this, but surely the landlord is responsible for fixing the electrics?  Surely they must be insured for things like this? I hope you get it all sorted out quickly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...