Happy Face

http://www.nhmshop.co.uk/green-gifts/rhino...ox/product.html When you only speak to a person once a year it's difficult.

A V+ box Thomas tank train track Thomas tank figures 2 picture frames Rhino poo in a box Dr Fart Key chain Dog bum pencil sharpener Mini-HDMI to HDMI Lead Don't Tell Mum I Work on the Rigs: (She Thinks I'm a Piano Player in a Whorehouse) Playing It Safe: The Crazy World of Britain's Health and Safety Regulations The Con Artist Handbook Lamaze - Stretch The Giraffe Science Putty Solar Airship £200 mostly on complete tat that none of the recipients will use. Still not finished either. Christmas is shit.

"I want" never gets as far as I'm concerned. I like F.E.A.R. though.

How pointless are tomorrow nights fixtures btw? Greatest advert for reverting to a straight knockout contest I've seen.

Come on Cluj. Bordeaux man, what you deein?

I mentioned in the Stoke match thread that I noticed a difference in the stewarding this week. As ineffective as ever in the corner like, just more of them asking people to sit down and looking over the bog walls to check if people are smoking. Dirty rotters. Happy to see costs cut as much as possible amongst office staff like.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/drexel/sainthoodsteps.shtml Miracle 1 - Won Ipswich the Uefa cup having bought only 14 players in 13 years. Miracle 2 - Got a team with Shola Ameobi up front into the champions league.

Sounds like a damned fine idea to me..... NUSC to canvass the idea? NUSC need to contact the vatican about a sainthood tbh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7773749.stm

MATHS RANKING 1995-2007 England's secondary pupils 1995: 25th place 1999: 20th place 2003: 18th place 2007: 7th place http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7773081.stm Vote labour!

I would have no problem with that personally, but only if the prices per game were lowered for pay as you go fans. well I don't expect to pay 500sheets to see Norwich, Barnsley, Plymouth etc I expect my £350 seat will get me a £500 position if we go down too. Best thing to happen to the club is big Mike.

No. It's ISP's being threatened (without basis most likely) by a charity, and the ISP's acceding to those threats. What did they threaten? I still haven't even read the article. Neither, a court based decision is. You've chosen two government policies and are comparing them to Private company policy. Are you saying you want a government body to be created to police ISPs and start censoring across the board? I've choosen 2 charities and put them in charge of their relevant policies/laws. Just like a charity is effectively doing in this case. Again as you seem to think the courts have no place in this decision, why do you think Cancer Research isn't the idea candidate to arbitrarily decide tobacco policy? It's the same thing. The courts don't have any place in this until someone takes it to court. I'm still not sure who you've got an axe to grind with or what you propose to do about it. Are you saying ISPs should be forced by law to allow access to every page of the internet? Or That charities shouldn't be able to campaign on an issue? Or that taxpayer money should be used so a court can arbitrate in every individual case like this? Sorry, you had specified this earlier... Perhaps, but using the threat of potential illegality (it isn't illegal as it stands - and it probably wouldn't be just like that artwork last year) to remove something from 95% of the UK on-line public, whilst leaving the same image on Amazon alone (because as rightly stated Amazon can and will stand up for itself).... all by a self-appointed "moral guardian". It's more than unreasonable, it's dangerous. So you're against charities campaigning on whatever issue they choose. Bit draconian isn't it. And the chgarity didn't choose to ban either page. They diapprove of both I'd imagine, it's the ISP only selectively going along with it. Oops. I've actually read the article now and it seems the IWF did only complain about Wiki, but then... "We only act on the reports we receive, and as I understand it, the only report we received regarding this content, as of Friday, was the content on Wikipedia," she said. Which is fair enough.

So Schuster's available eh?

No. It's ISP's being threatened (without basis most likely) by a charity, and the ISP's acceding to those threats. What did they threaten? I still haven't even read the article. Neither, a court based decision is. You've chosen two government policies and are comparing them to Private company policy. Are you saying you want a government body to be created to police ISPs and start censoring across the board? I've choosen 2 charities and put them in charge of their relevant policies/laws. Just like a charity is effectively doing in this case. Again as you seem to think the courts have no place in this decision, why do you think Cancer Research isn't the idea candidate to arbitrarily decide tobacco policy? It's the same thing. The courts don't have any place in this until someone takes it to court. I'm still not sure who you've got an axe to grind with or what you propose to do about it. Are you saying ISPs should be forced by law to allow access to every page of the internet? Or That charities shouldn't be able to campaign on an issue? Or that taxpayer money should be used so a court can arbitrate in every individual case like this? Sorry, you had specified this earlier... Perhaps, but using the threat of potential illegality (it isn't illegal as it stands - and it probably wouldn't be just like that artwork last year) to remove something from 95% of the UK on-line public, whilst leaving the same image on Amazon alone (because as rightly stated Amazon can and will stand up for itself).... all by a self-appointed "moral guardian". It's more than unreasonable, it's dangerous. So you're against charities campaigning on whatever issue they choose. Bit draconian isn't it. And the chgarity didn't choose to ban either page. They diapprove of both I'd imagine, it's the ISP only selectively going along with it.

No. It's ISP's being threatened (without basis most likely) by a charity, and the ISP's acceding to those threats. What did they threaten? I still haven't even read the article. Neither, a court based decision is. You've chosen two government policies and are comparing them to Private company policy. Are you saying you want a government body to be created to police ISPs and start censoring across the board? I've choosen 2 charities and put them in charge of their relevant policies/laws. Just like a charity is effectively doing in this case. Again as you seem to think the courts have no place in this decision, why do you think Cancer Research isn't the idea candidate to arbitrarily decide tobacco policy? It's the same thing. The courts don't have any place in this until someone takes it to court. I'm still not sure who you've got an axe to grind with or what you propose to do about it. Are you saying ISPs should be forced by law to allow access to every page of the internet? Or That charities shouldn't be able to campaign on an issue? Or that taxpayer money should be used so a court can arbitrate in every individual case like this?

It was another point I couldn't really be arsed to argue tbh. My point was that the BBFC have to certify anything for it to get a release. If they refuse certification, it's effectively banned unless the courts get involved. The classification and decision to "ban" is not exactly arbitrary, but entirely at their discretion and is only challenged when it's cost effective. That's the same decision the ISPs are making at the insistence of the IWF. The ISPs are free to listen to lobby groups or not. Anyone disagreeing with the decision is free to set up their own lobby group to have the decision overturned or change ISP in protest You wouldn't want and couldn't have a statutory designated authority classifying every page of the internet because it's too vast and too instant. You'd end up like China. This is what China does. The Chinese government enforce it. This is a selection of private ISPs reacting to complaints, not UK government policy. Which is preferable? You've chosen two government policies and are comparing them to Private company policy. Are you saying you want a government body to be created to police ISPs and start censoring across the board?

It was another point I couldn't really be arsed to argue tbh. My point was that the BBFC have to certify anything for it to get a release. If they refuse certification, it's effectively banned unless the courts get involved. The classification and decision to "ban" is not exactly arbitrary, but entirely at their discretion and is only challenged when it's cost effective. That's the same decision the ISPs are making at the insistence of the IWF. The ISPs are free to listen to lobby groups or not. Anyone disagreeing with the decision is free to set up their own lobby group to have the decision overturned or change ISP in protest You wouldn't want and couldn't have a statutory designated authority classifying every page of the internet because it's too vast and too instant. You'd end up like China.

It's a very important part though. You say there is "justification" for the picture.... ok (I disagree, but I can see the point). But where is the "justification" for the text? Did I use the word justification? Not sure why that's in quotes. I don't think people should be beaten up, but I don't get too apalled by nonce bashing either. I don't see how an ISP could censor the picture and not the text. So the difference between the two isn't worth debating either afaic, as a censored page they go hand in hand. EDIT: I'm sure if Wiki removed the offending image, the ISPs wouldn't censor the text.

All she needs is a Chinese kid and she's got the cast for a Coca Cola advert.

Out of interest do you really think the courts should play no part in deeming what the UK public should see or not see? The courts have no part in BBFC decisions either, unless someone takes it further. Same thing here. For a start the BBFC is a statutory designated authority, IWF is not it's a charity. Plus the BBFC are enforced be the law, not themselves (and they are at pains to state this themselves), and they will simply to refuse to certify them (not arbitrary ban them) and it goes through the court process (which would make the final decision). Which is completely different. Again it's not the same thing. This is a picture (and text - how do you justify the text banning btw? It required a separate action it wasn't just the easy way) on a non-UK website, being banned by a self-appointed charity because it "may" be illegal - I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be IF it were to go through the court process - something the IWF it seem to think as it's leaving Amazon well alone. So again do you really think the courts should play no part in deeming what the UK public should see or not see? I started a post yesterday about differentiating betweeen the text and the picture but was so disinterested in protecting the rights of a rock band to court controversy by using a child with their blit out that I didn't bother.

Out of interest do you really think the courts should play no part in deeming what the UK public should see or not see? The courts have no part in BBFC decisions either, unless someone takes it further. Same thing here. Of course it's illegal to release anything on video without certification. Would you prefer EVERY page viewable in the UK to be certified, or a common sense approach where ISPs and sites self censor?

I forgot Girl Talk, Ratatat and Jim Noir. They were all class too.

You might enjoy a remix of one of those tracks a mate of mine did with Fix Up Look Sharp.... http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendID=67125937

Bon Iver was 2007, wasn't it? If not, it's on mine then. Along with Grouper who has a similar vibe going for it. I thought so too, but the NPR year in review podcast came out today and included it due to it only getting a limited release in '07, so I think it's being allowed. Febuary 2008 in the UK.

Erasure will begin writing new material in middle of 2009. To be released on the 23rd February 2009 is "Total Pop! The First 40 Hits", a collection of Erasure's first 40 hits which features all the hit singles from Erasure's five no. 1 albums, eighteen top 10 singles plus a brand new remix of "Always" by Jeremy Wheatley.