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

    • Hi, Just a quick note to say it's six months since I launched Eats Dulwich. In that time I've reviewed 28 restaurants. Usually four or five a month except for a month when I came down with gout, which I guess is an occupational hazard. Don't say I don't suffer for my art. Early on someone – Sue, I think – asked me what I'm going to do when I've reviewed every restaurant in East Dulwich. I'm nowhere near that point, but what I have found is that a lot of new openings have tended to be in Rye Lane, so the site has expanded to cover SE15, hence the slight change of name (still haven't had any cease and desist letters from anything with a similar name).  Anyway, the site is still free, it would be great if as many readers as possible here can subscribe so that they automatically get new posts (when you try to subscribe the default might be paid subs but that's down to Substack, just tick the free option instead) as I don't post everything on EDF. Obviously you can get reviews elsewhere if you want, but I think this is the only proper site for local East Dulwich people written by a local East Dulwich person. If you like eating out please have a read. And if there are other places you think I should visit please mention them below and i'll do my best to try them. Link here: https://eatsdulwich.substack.com/  
    • Can you explain what your point was, then? Because it isn't clear to me. No. Perhaps you could provide a link and explain its relevance? That would be helpful     Those figures suggest that over 10,000,000 voters were not "rejecting a far left party."
    • Anyone can deliver for Evri - my daughter having just passed her driving test tried Evri to make some money - they basically give you a route and as many parcels as they think you can cope with - you make money for each one you deliver, so you can imagine - speed is the priority. Why would they wait for you to answer the door when they can just throw it and take a photo? If you have a choice, choose a different courier service or shop elsewhere where they do.  
    • Boil - it’s the customer’s fault, not the delivery person’s. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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