manc-mag

Not fake, very real, unfortunately she had a reduction. Gumph! Didnt see the original photo, was just commenting on the Wackster's general view on fake ones (which I subscribe to). They're definitely the genuine article.

Fucking hell how harsh is this getting-based on clairvoyant projections of what she will look like in years time!

He can kiss my taco-bell.

'Buffet the (xmas)hamper slayer'

How true is that btw? Testify, brother.

Gumph!

Love that bit in Peep Show where Jez is playing poker without knowing any of the rules and winning with a really shit hand, turns to Mark and gambles his chips too: "...may I?"

PS and my comp is clearly fucked.

The scenario is basically this Fop: I'm a business man and I do business with company A and company B. They both attend a networking do hosted by me, they both get drunk and both start saying things (the same thing) that I'm worried might offend my other business colleagues. I'm worried about how this will affect my business because this is happening on my business platform after all. As a result of this I chide A and tell him to shut up because he is a small customer and I'm not too concerned about the consequences, but I don't take action against B because he's a huge customer and I don't want to lose his business/I'm worried about him suing me in the event our business relations sour as a result and other things go tits up. Neither of the views expressed by A or B are unlawful, and the other business colleagues can still hear them spouted in bars all around the country if they have an appetite for that type of conversation. This is not government censorship either in the action itself or the resultant consequences and is absolutely nothing new. The trouble is (I suspect) you have such a personal relationship with the internet that you think it should be treated differently/exceptionally. I don't know for sure why this is, but I rather wonder whether it's because you're the type who would be less likely to get the same information 'down the pub' for whatever reason. I make no more mention of this but just say it for what it's worth. As to the rest of your post (above), you're now reverting to the position where you fail to address/ignore individual points that you're unable to respond to so I won't go any further either. I merely reiterate the point that what you're insisting on is (effectively) a Big Brother situation with Fop in the title role, and if you can't see the irony of this then I really am wasting my lunch break tbh. And I've got a really nice sandwich here too!

More paradoxical that Happy Face arguing the exact same issue as US Christian Neo-Cons? Honestly that's the funniest thing I've seen here in a long time (and he really hates it!). (although as it wasn't challenged though any statutory measure so I fail to see your point too. ) Freedom of speech and expression, culminating in the right to lawfully protest (as you have done here) is how people participate in a democracy outside of election periods. On the other hand you insisting that a private law matter be brought before the courts where the parties do not consent to that is basically you imposing your own beliefs on private individuals without any legitimacy. Or if you like, a dictatorship/Big Brother scenario. But I guess that doesn't matter when it's you pulling the strings, eh?

Blatantly fancies you and worries about what'll happen if he has too much drink in your company. Or am I just projecting my own feelings onto him? Euphemism? Might see if wor lass will got for that-bit more poetic than 'plasterer's radio' anyway.

Interesting to hear a bit about your background, mate-and genuinely sorry to learn of the loss involved. I realised that, since the age of 18 to now (13 years) I've been single for all of about 6 months total. Frightening stuff tbh. I reckon it probably comes in waves-if I was single now I don't think I'd do any chasing for a fair while. If you're relatively happy single then you probably won't either, like you say. Probably all change in a second when a particular lass sashays past and blows your spunk-brittle socks off though.

Matthew Parris for the Times: "I think it was a Freudian slip in the clinical sense" Speaking as a qualified psychiatrist, obviously.

Again it's not self regulation (unless again you think the Cancer Research should control tabacoo policy.... although given your Neo-Con leanings I guess you think it should be the cigarette industry that controls tabacco policy? ) The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is a self-regulated charitable body, the only recognised such organisation in the United Kingdom operating an Internet 'hotline' for the public and IT professionals to report their exposure to potentially illegal content on the Internet. It operates in partnership with the police, government, public, Internet service providers (ISPs), and the wider online industry. Originally formed to police child pornography online, the IWF's remit was later expanded to cover racist and criminally obscene material. The IWF is an incorporated charity, limited by guarantee, and largely funded by voluntary contributions from UK communications service providers, including ISPs, mobile phone operators, Internet trade associations, search engines, hardware manufacturers, and software providers. It also receives funding from the Association for Payment Clearing Services and the European Union. The IWF is governed by a Board of Trustees which consists of an independent chair, six non-industry representatives, and three industry representatives. The Board monitors and reviews IWF's remit, strategy, policy and budget to enable the IWF to achieve its objectives. The IWF operates from offices in Oakington, near Cambridge. Government policy on policing the internet is one of self-regulation... The government believes that a self-regulatory system is the best solution, and the Metropolitan Police also believe that working with ISPs, rather than trying to force them via legislation, is the way forward.[6] The IWF has a blacklist of URLs which is available to ISPs, but ISPs are not forced to subscribe to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation I'll ask again, what process do you envision that provides oversight of what content is blocked and what isn't? Again the courts ultimately, if public scrutiny fails (as it didn't in this case), at least some form of statutory appeals process before that. All very sensible, which I realise irks you and your Neo-Con beliefs ( ), but that is life. "The courts" isn't a process it's a result. I'm asking how webpages should come to a court ruling. Like a film whereby no webpage gets released until it's classified? Should all pages be published to begin with and a court ruling be required on EVERY page proposed for censorship? Or should it stay as it is whereby all pages get published to begin with but an indepentent organisation deem what's acceptable or not and where someone disagrees with any censorship they can take it to court? Again as much as you try to create a strawman to get you out of your little Christian Neo-Con corner ( ) - none of the above. If it's illegal the police and CPS should be involved, if it's just the bad taste police (as this case) there is no case to answer. As much as it goes against your Neo-Con sensibilities, in this case something was banned that was clearly NOT illegal (even by their own definitions). So clearly they need much more rigorous and independently overseen (and challengeable) procedures. I know you Neo-Cons don't take kindly to people questioning your beliefs, and generally think of yourselves as thought/moral police, but you're not. So in a free and democratic society that is what happens and must happen. You'll just have to come to terms with it, and move on to the next item on your Christian Neo-Con agenda. That's weak, even by your low standards. First of all nothing was banned. Second, it was challengable and indeed challenged succesfully as you so gleefully took (for some unknown reason) as some sort of validation that freedom of speech has been eroded in the UK. Feel free to outline the more rigorous and independently overseen (and even more challengeable) procedures you're proposing though. I think that's a very good point tbh. Fop's arguments can tend to get a bit paradoxical though without him realising.

In all seriousness though Fop, HF is right-it's a very basic question of locus standi. Someone has to bring a matter before the courts, they can't just go in of their own volition. Indeed if it was any different to that I'm sure that would offend against every other principle you stand for. Eg a non-elected judge casting their eye over society and deciding what cases he/she decides they want to try (civil or criminal), regardless of the parties views. Specifically in the scenario you give, the police/CPS would have no legitimate interest in enforcing private law remedies between two individuals, be they bodies corporate or private citizens.

my apologies.

Surprised you managed to get anything from wiki in this big brother state we live in Nah it was just a Peep Show reference. It means take your negative vibes elsewhere, you hater.

Why don't you take your negative orgones to another thread tbh.

This tbh.

We're all going to hell in a handcart. You couldn't make it up. etc etc.

You an afficianado of pinball machines like? How the fuck does it look terrible Nah mate, I was just testing. Can't see the attraction aestheticaly tho tbh, it looks rickety as fuck. Get yourself a mint pool table tbh.

Fuckin' hell!

Fucking hell man, that pinball machine looks dreadful.

In the words of Keith Fowler: My Gawwwwd!

Woven into the fabric of my childhood them. RIP.