Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I didn't really want to diss Ulrika on here. I don't know the woman after all. I'm sure she's great fun. She is after all a good foil for Vic & Bob's mericless piss taking and she takes it all in her stride. For example:-


BOB: "Ulrika, lovely to see you. Just how many kids have you had since I last saw you."

ULRIKA: "I saw you in make-up ten minutes ago."

BOB: "Exactly."


Anyway, Sven Goran-Eriksson and Stan Collymore to name but two... It's pretty obvious she has very poor taste in men.

Thats why I just love this Forum.

We are seem to be agreed that its marvellous,fantabulous even to have as many kids by as many different Fathers as possible.>:D<


Just finished watching Donal McIntyre's show on Bravo last night where he was looking at the new generation of gangster families and asking what they be more vicious than their Parents. The Godmother only had 6 kids by 4 different Dads,so plenty of room for improvement but one of the 2 vicious 19-year-old "New Generation was one of 22 kids which should be applauded I feel even though he,strangely,never got to know his Parents.

Funny Dat!

The more the merrier I say!:)-D

I followed watched the 1st episode of the 1st big brother and thought it was terrible. Terrible in the sense that they get given food and spend all day playing stupid games. If I were in charge they'd at least have to earn their crust such as performing dirty Sanchez style tricks on sleeping housemates and at the end when the winner leaves the house the bridge gives way and they're devoured by man eating midgets. I actually thanked god when my other half declared she couldn't stand it when the big brother adverts came on.


Did you know the big brother house has the same 'no fly zone' status as a lot of M.O.D property, ridiculous!

Gee Tony, thank you for once again for bringing the flavour of the 'burbs to the discussion. I really couldn't say what 'We' think in re: whether "it's marvellous,fantabulous even to have as many kids by as many different Fathers as possible" - I can only repeat that I don't believe having 4 kids to 4 fathers is automatically grounds for having social services come to pay a visit. Call me radical.


To BN5 - *blows kiss, awaits input*

Moos Wrote:

Gee Tony, thank you for once again for bringing the flavour of the 'burbs to the discussion.


That would have been the "flavour" of virtually every Working-Class Family and their beliefs when I grew up in the heart of Working-Class,Southwark,Sarf London,as well:(...so 1960's I knows....B)


Moos Wrote:

Call me radical......


Au Contraire! Considering other views expressed just b4 you were:-

1/Posted by:keef

So she has kids by different dads, so fecking what?!?

then:

2/ Posted by: georgia Today, 03:18PM

Well said Keef.

then:

Posted by: SeanMacGabhann Today, 03:32PM

spot on indeed Keef

then:Posted by: Strawbs Today, 03:51PM

I dont see what all the fuss about her is really.....


...I would say 'tis I that is the radical one:))

bigbadwolf Wrote:

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

> Did you know the big brother house has the same

> 'no fly zone' status as a lot of M.O.D property,

> ridiculous!


Sorry BBW, but that's nonsense, my mate 'Helicopter' Darren regularly flies over both Pete Townsend and Paul Weller's homes.

Never had a problem, though he reckons that Weller once gave him a bit of a glare when he flew low and disturbed his coiffuer.

Though frankly I wouldn't necessarily give that too much credence, Darren is prone to exaggaration.

bignumber5 Wrote:

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

> I can only repeat that I don't believe having 4

> kids to 4 fathers is automatically grounds for

> having social services come to pay a visit.

>

> Never meant to suggest that fact in isolation was

> automatic grounds. Am giving this one up as a bad

> job.


'Scool. I'm letting this one drop too, on the grounds that I can't be bothered.

I think it is more the fact that she got a bit of a name for herself in relation to other womens' husbands, she does seem to be a bit quick off the mark when it comes to, oh, new man lets have another baby though, but wish she would put that blasted bottle of water down, is it a comfort thing or is she just missing her man?

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

    • That's not what I said and you know it. 
    • I disagree, it was pretty filthy back then, plus the issues that Southwark have had were the ones left by EA.  
    • I've been cycling in London for decades. The two times a vehicle knocked me off my bicycle, were in conditions that were well lit (one was daylight) and the night time one was just me and the vehicle on the road. Both the driver's fault. The point it that most drivers are perfectly capable of seeing a bicycle in most conditions, just as they are capable of seeing a child or dog run out in front of them. Who knows why a small percentage are incapable of doing that, but gaslighting the victim is not the answer. Are there wreckless cyclists? Sure. Just as there are reckless drivers and pedestrians. But it's worth remembering that millions of roads users navigate their journeys perfectly safely every day. As a driver, you are taught to check your mirrors regularly (not just when considering an manoevre), and the first rule of the Highway Code, is to always avoid an accident if you can. My attitude when using the roads it to always expect someone to do something stupid/ wreckless. I look for it. That is the best way of avoiding any accident, no matter what form of transport you use. 
    • The existing guidance is advisory. It suggests that cyclists and pedestrians might like to consider wearing brighter clothes / reflective gear etc. Doesn't say you have to. Lights is a separate matter because they're a legal requirement but helmets, hi-vis etc is all guidance. The problem is that as soon as anyone isn't wearing it, it gets used as a weapon against them. Witness the number of times on this very forum that the first question asked when a cyclist injury is reported, someone going "were they wearing a helmet?!" in an almost accusatory tone. And the common tone of these sort of threads of "I saw a cyclist wearing all black..." Generally get on with life in a considerably more sensible and less victim-blaming manner. Things are also a lot clearer legally, most countries have Presumed Liability which usually means that the bigger more powerful vehicle is to blame unless proven otherwise. And contrary to popular belief, this does not result in pedestrians leaping under the wheels of a cyclist or cyclists hurling themselves in front of trucks in order to claim compensation. To be fair, this time of year is crap all round. Most drivers haven't regularly driven in the dark since about February / March (and haven't bothered to check minor things like their own lights, screenwash levels etc), it's a manic time in the shops (Halloween / Bonfire Night / Black Friday) so there's loads more people out and about (very few of them paying any attention to anything), the weather is rubbish, there are slippery leaves everywhere... 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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