Jump to content

Recommended Posts

LM The chemicals regulatory directorate is funded 60% by

agrochemical industry, I thhink about ?7,000,000 that does not sit well with me.

Scientific studies and there findings have been ignored by goverment.

Sorry cant put up links now,I am not denying bans have been put in place

How they come about is a different matter.I do not want to go off cosmetic topic,

which is a concern but not a main concern for me,

TE44, 100% of the police force is paid for by British citizens - does that mean that they won't arrest you for a crime?


No.


This is an example of how your logic is flawed and you're listening to people with stupid ideas.


It is right and correct that the policing of the chemicals industry is paid for from the profits of the chemical industry.


Why should chemical manufacturers gets rich, whilst taxpayers like you (who typically have to count every penny) have to pay to stop them breaking the law?


THINK about it!


This doesn't make it corrupt, it makes it sensible.


The HSE is a publicly accountable body that is normally criticized for being 'nanny state' and 'too restrictive' - are you seriously claiming that it is now too soft?


This is really silly stuff.

The financial services industry has to pay (through a levy on certain activities) for bank deposit insurance. Industry often has to (through no choice of their own) fund things for public benefit related to the field. What exactly are you claiming the funding relationship is and why does it make you uncomfortable?

WorkingMummy Wrote:

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

> Dulwich2020, or even Admin,

> Any chance you could change the title of this

> thread?

> The content of the OP was entirely unobjectionable

> as an expression of irritation, and nothing like

> as extreme as some of the views since expressed

> by, well, mainly by Louisa. But even Louisa has,

> at one point, distanced herself from the title.

> It's insulting.

> The thread is proving very popular and has been at

> or near the top of the board for a few days now.

> It is rather a slap in the face whenever you enter

> the lounge: "Gross women".


Hi


I did not mean the title to be insulting, and you can read it 2 ways. Woman are gross which is not what I mean, or its gross to watch woman personal grooming on public transport which is how I meants it. Its no worse than the TV program called LOOSE WOMAN. But if others agree I'm happy to change it although just like news headlines I think this title is what made this thread so popular


Exuse typos on the bus on BB

I think the title should be 'inconsiderate foundations'


As a woman I too have no issue with the title, but I can appreciate why others would and it is somewhat unfortunate because it takes away from the seriousness of the subject matter.


I wonder does anyone know what the opinion of TfL is regarding cosmetics and use of other items on public transport?


Louisa.

This is the best mentalist thread I've seen on here in ages.


I put on make up on the bus, not because of my sloppy vagina (come on UncleBen, that's what you were really getting at with your loose morals comments, wasn't it?) but because I would rather spend an extra ten minutes in bed in the morning, breathing in the warm scent of my handsome man, thus seeing me off for my working day calm and happy, and altogether less likely to punch you repeatedly in your sexist face.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> RosieH there's no excuse for violence. The best

> way to get your own back on a "sexist man" is to

> spit in his dinner.

>

> Louisa.


But that's wholly unladylike!


http://andthatswhyyouresingle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/scared-woman.jpg

I do not wish to know about your sloppy vagina Rosie H *shudders*. You have proved my point though so thank you - you apply make up on public transport because of your sloppy attitude and would rather lay in bed than preparing for work/the day which is sloppy and lazy and reflects on you as it does others with the same mentality. The mentality in fact that is not liked by many posters on this thread.

RosieH Wrote:

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

> This is the best mentalist thread I've seen on

> here in ages.

>

> I put on make up on the bus, not because of my

> sloppy vagina (come on UncleBen, that's what you

> were really getting at with your loose morals

> comments, wasn't it?) but because I would rather

> spend an extra ten minutes in bed in the morning,

> breathing in the warm scent of my handsome man,


You have a man Rosie! now this is cause to celebrate. Well done.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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


> You have a man Rosie! now this is cause to

> celebrate. Well done.



Ha, you didn't think anyone would have me, Mick? I'm right adorable, I am. Even when punching people in the face.


Caveated for Louisa - just to clarify, the only time I've ever punched someone in the face was when a rugby twat forcibly shoved his hand inside my underwear uninvited. Something UncleBen probably thinks is down to my sloppy morals.


I'd rather have my sloppy morals UncleBen, than your sloppy grammar. Your terrible command of the English language is really offensive to me. I'd suggest you probably have a sloppy IQ (*shudders*). But I'd be a bit less judgmental about it than you are.


Oh, and you also have terrible, and racist, taste in rice.

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

    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
    • Totally agree with you.  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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