bridge too far

I hope the reverend's got it SAUTED now.

Yep, and if I'm the passenger in Mr TF's car and he drives too close to the kerb, I tend to lean towards him. And I duck for low flying birds. :oops:

He had 'unnatural DESIREEs' didn't he

Yo, Jan baby - here's the team sheet for the second half.

Hang on whilst I take my jacket off...... It's roasting in here...... Nearly with you, just mashing some tea..... So - who's going to start the spud jokes then?

Did peels of laughter ring out?

Is it, in fact, YOU?

I think I heard today that 'arry's been told there's no money for the Jan. transfer window. That's a potential nice little earner outa da window for him (allegedly)

I'm the exception to this rule as I often squeeze through gaps that others don't even try. I do, however, breathe in as I make my manoeuvre

Are we digging for buried treasure now? Are we that desperate

Oh! My bad Pancake It's just that when they say 'and now the news headlines' I somehow expect them to tell me about serious flooding in Devon rather than pointless crap about two idiots and 28,998 other idiots.

We do, Ponty, and he was posting at about 9am this morning, so I guess he's alright. Cabbage - it was on 5 Live this morning so I then watched BBC Breakfast. You're right - not a mensh

I don't HATE the Daily Mail - that's ferkin' stupid, to hate an inanimate object. I read it from time to time, so that I can balance the reporting in the Guardian and it's a shame others don't do something similar. Its views often offend me, but I don't complain because I know what to expect. I'm all for newspaper campaigns for good causes and concerns. But the Mail has a history of BBC bashing and it's using this as an excuse to bash Auntie again. No doubt the Mail's allies, commercial broadcasters, will see this as an opportunity to snap up Brand and Ross - will the Mail still complain then I wonder.

Don't you tease, too! I'm a female - I need to know everything that's going on R x

Yeah well I'm a luvvie Guardian reader too and I thought it was wrong. Nick I've said this - what - 5 times on this thread already! Are you not able to understand the higher point I'm trying to make?

What a tease you are Morph

Is that what's called Joint and Several Liability?

According to its website the 23-year-old and her troupe are "four of the sexiest depraved London jezebels" who put on shows which include "blood, guts, gore, sexy striptease and slutty activity." Writing on her own web page, Baillie, who goes under the stage name Voluptua, says: "I am a member of the Satanic Sluts Xtreme and perform violent, horrific and sexy burlesque shows around the UK and the rest of Europe with my dance and burlesque troupe. .. I like to party, I don't care if you call me a waster or even a groupie because I am having so much more fun than you and living this way makes me happy." (Excerpt from the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/30/russell-brand-ross-baillie-sachs) I understand that she heard about it first and then told her grandfather. According to his interview yesterday (and I'm paraphrasing) 'I give her advice but they don't listen do they'. Do you suppose she heard the clip and thought either: a) Oh sh*t my grandad's going to be livid with me for being so silly as to sleep with Russell Brand or b) Yippee, a chance for me to get me and my 'baroque burlesque' dance troupe some free publicitiy? Again, for the benefit especially of Nick, I'm not supporting or justifying the phone call. I'm trying to find a balanced view in amongst all the hype. Afterthought If the Daily Mail readers watched her dance troupe, do you suppose they would be more / less 'offended'?

Because they don't want to breathe the polluted air from the car in front :smt102

Scooby :smt102 Can we get the Daily Heil to start a campaign against him?

And, if you re-read my post, you'll see that I said that what they did was in very poor taste. I still think that. I also think that Andrew Sachs has been very dignified in the way he's dealt with the whole matter and is to be admired for that. I'm trying to make the wider, more prosaic point that is this. It is not right that the BBC reacts so vehemently to ANY pressure that is not representative of the views of majority, be that the Labour Party or the Daily Mail. The BBC should be (and, in the main, is) apolitical. People have jumped on a bandwagon without thinking through the consequences. Censorship, in any form, is unhealthy. If all these complainants had actually listened to the programme and complained AT THE TIME, there'd be more justification for the BBC's reaction. However, if they've only complained after watching the programme on the internet, then they shouldn't have watched it if they thought they were going to be offended. But frenzies have been whipped and that's what's wrong.

Didn't the two MPs for Southampton get very involved not too long ago - when we previously had internal wranglings and soul searching? Or is that wishful thinking on my part?

Didn't the two MPs for Southampton get very involved not too long ago - when we previously had internal wranglings and soul searching? Or is that wishful thinking on my part?

How so? If he's desperate to sell, then it's the buyer's call, surely? The bid price is 25p and the offer price is 28p so the midprice is c. 25p ATM.

How so? If he's desperate to sell, then it's the buyer's call, surely? The bid price is 25p and the offer price is 28p so the midprice is c. 25p ATM.