Happy Face

A fact he wholeheartedly accepts and ridicules himself for. Like a smoker or a drinker he's happy with how it affects his health. His point is that having gone through check in and through security and the through the boarding gate and having been welcomed aboard by the stewards, only once he'd sat down and the the plane was full (even though his belt fit and both arms would go down) they threw him off in front of 200 other passengers. He'd have to have eaten a fucking load of ring-dings once he sat down to become hazardous that rapidly. I make no apologies for fatties, but that's fucking inhumane.

He explains how he flies with that airline regularly. He and his family had paid for 10 flights back and forth just this week. He just got one twat of a trolley dolly who chose the wrong fatty to fuck with cos it's going to cost them their job. Do airlines not have a sign that says "you must buy an additional seat if you are wider than..." <-------------------------> with a picture of John Candy or someone...like the fairgrounds have for short people. You'd have thought causing that kind of offence wouldn't be left to discretion. Fish, what's the score?

I listened to the Smodcast on the way to work this morning. It's canny funny. They offered him an address to write to if he wanted to complain and he laughed at them "I won't need that, you'll be contacting me pretty soon" before he unleashed his 1.5million followers on Twitter. Fair play to him whipping up a storm over it like.

Did she enjoy the last gift the most?? I'd like to say she did, but if I'm honest, I'd have to say she was more satisfied after the Ben and Jerry's.

Wall-E Liked it a bit more than the first time, but still not one of Pixar's best imo. Too slow for kids, too lightweight for grown-ups. Be Kind, Rewind An excellent idea spoiled. The remakes of Ghosbusters and Rush Hour 2 were the funniest parts. Abandoning that approach for the Fats Waller documentary, while admirable in terms of promoting originality, was a stupid idea because it defeats it's own argument by showing their original film isn't half as entertaining as their remakes.

I gave her a dozen rozes, Thorntons Chocolates, Polar Bear ice cream, a bottle of Rose, That's Amore rat pack CD, and a Radley handbag. Then I kicked her back doors in.

It was about 200p when he bought the club.

I think I covered that earlier..... Yet as these numbers dwindle, the panic whipped up seems to be far greater than when more attacks actually took place.

Exactly. In the last 3 years since the attack mentioned above we've increased defence spending by 15% and justified it as keeping us safe though. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDef...nceSpending.htm What price security though? You have just quoted an example since Lockerbie that could have been a bigger disaster. Does this warrant more money spent on airport security ? This is political. The NHS, Education, Transport etc, they all could do with more money - some of them could be managed better too - but where do you draw the line ? How much of your taxes would you be prepared to pay ? Some people are prepared to pay for this, and some aren't [but still expect it to still be a good "service"]. The two bold questions seem to me to be contradictions. How do you define "security" in the second one? The absolute certainty that we'll be safe on the tube, the terminal or the plane? We agree that's impossible. For that reason I would not have advocated any significant increase in security spending either following 9/11 or 7/7. Certainly not at a rate higher than increases in education, health or even transport spending. I don't believe that either of those events made Great Britain an inherently more dangerous place to live. yes, it is impossible. It is when something happens, the public come out and ask questions. They don't appear to understand that such things are impossible to achieve. When nothing happens, they complain about the cost though. My personal opinon is that all the public services are underfunded, you could also say they are badly managed and they probably are in lots of areas. People can't expect high standards from underfunded public service, I think decreasing proportional spending increases the chance of an attack. 9/11 and 7/7 would have made the average man in the street more aware of security, but there are still millions who think it won't happen to them so they aren't too concerned. But of course, there are victims in every attack who thought it wouldn't happen to them. I know a guy who, on the day of the 7/7,, didn't get that bus to work. He got it every single day but missed it that once ..... The way I look at it, the danger of being burgled, beaten, raped, murdered etc is far greater than the danger of being bombed (thought still small) and is reduced by more policing. Since 2001 UK defence spending has increased £13Billion from £24Billion to £37Billion. That's 55% (or 6% a year), supposedly to keep us safer. In the same period Northumbria police budget has increased from £228m to £300m. Just over a 30% increase or (3.3% a year), around half as much, in an area that would have a far more beneficial impact on the security of UK residents.

I distinctly remember my mam sent me to do the dishes while it was on. Shite little portable in the corner with a coat-hanger for an aeriel and so much snow I could hardly see the green of the pitch. I spent more time trying to get a better reception on that bastard than doing dishes. I could have been in and out in 5 minutes but ended up watching most of the game (or what I could make out) in there.

Might as well stay with a lass with the clap cos other lasses have the bad aids. We can dream of a VD free owner.

Exactly. In the last 3 years since the attack mentioned above we've increased defence spending by 15% and justified it as keeping us safe though. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDef...nceSpending.htm What price security though? You have just quoted an example since Lockerbie that could have been a bigger disaster. Does this warrant more money spent on airport security ? This is political. The NHS, Education, Transport etc, they all could do with more money - some of them could be managed better too - but where do you draw the line ? How much of your taxes would you be prepared to pay ? Some people are prepared to pay for this, and some aren't [but still expect it to still be a good "service"]. The two bold questions seem to me to be contradictions. How do you define "security" in the second one? The absolute certainty that we'll be safe on the tube, the terminal or the plane? We agree that's impossible. For that reason I would not have advocated any significant increase in security spending either following 9/11 or 7/7. Certainly not at a rate higher than increases in education, health or even transport spending. I don't believe that either of those events made Great Britain an inherently more dangerous place to live.

Since Lockerbie I guess. "It works" is one of the least convincing justifications imo. I think ANY averted disasters would and should be BIG news, however, I'm struggling to think of a single publicised occurence of airport security intervening and making a save. If they had, I would have thought that kind of news would be jumped on to justify extra security, but it hasn't happened, so they can't. It's an expensive method of providing the illusion of safety wheras most plots are foiled only by complete luck. Not to say there aren't instances where the intelligence services have done excellent work, but only that kind of work can reap those kinds of rewards imo. Spot checks are useless and obligatory intestine searches are an invasion of privacy so extreme the terrorists will be well pleased with themselves. Glasgow ? They do not tell you/us about the averted ones, whatever the number small or large, because they deal with sources of intelligence etc and these things also cost a lot of money and time to set up and run. This is highly classified stuff HF. There was no intervention by anyone in the Glasgow attack was there? Two mentalists set fire to their car full of propane cannisters and drove it towards the terminal. This followed on from their original plan (to set off two bombs in London a day earlier) being scuppered only when an ambulence crew saw smoke coming from one of the cars. yes, you are right. I remember now. Shows nothing is 100% safe though doesn't it ? Exactly. In the last 3 years since the attack mentioned above we've increased defence spending by 15% and justified it as keeping us safe though. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDef...nceSpending.htm

Since Lockerbie I guess. "It works" is one of the least convincing justifications imo. I think ANY averted disasters would and should be BIG news, however, I'm struggling to think of a single publicised occurence of airport security intervening and making a save. If they had, I would have thought that kind of news would be jumped on to justify extra security, but it hasn't happened, so they can't. It's an expensive method of providing the illusion of safety wheras most plots are foiled only by complete luck. Not to say there aren't instances where the intelligence services have done excellent work, but only that kind of work can reap those kinds of rewards imo. Spot checks are useless and obligatory intestine searches are an invasion of privacy so extreme the terrorists will be well pleased with themselves. Glasgow ? They do not tell you/us about the averted ones, whatever the number small or large, because they deal with sources of intelligence etc and these things also cost a lot of money and time to set up and run. This is highly classified stuff HF. There was no intervention by anyone in the Glasgow attack was there? Two mentalists set fire to their car full of propane cannisters and drove it towards the terminal. This followed on from their original plan (to set off two bombs in London a day earlier) being scuppered only when an ambulence crew saw smoke coming from one of the cars.

Since Lockerbie I guess. "It works" is one of the least convincing justifications imo. I think ANY averted disasters would and should be BIG news, however, I'm struggling to think of a single publicised occurence of airport security intervening and making a save. If they had, I would have thought that kind of news would be jumped on to justify extra security, but it hasn't happened, so they can't. It's an expensive method of providing the illusion of safety wheras most plots are foiled only by complete luck. Not to say there aren't instances where the intelligence services have done excellent work, but only that kind of work can reap those kinds of rewards imo. Spot checks are useless and obligatory intestine searches are an invasion of privacy so extreme the terrorists will be well pleased with themselves.

Increased defense spending is a huge burden on the taxpayer, and threats such as this are used to justify that spending while (during economic downturns like the current one) all other spending is frozen or cut. There is a constant barrage of press about the risks we face from terrorism in order to justify the tens of billions being pumped into the miltary/defense. But the facts are that one attack has been made on the country, it originated from within our own shores and was made in retaliation to our governments actions abroad. I'm not daft enough to forget that supporting the war also brings in millions from the likes of BAE who's success relies on war being waged and who belong to an industry that employs hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in this country, but i don't think that's justification, though it's probably the only reasoning I wouldn't dispute.

I really can't get into the Smiths. I've tried a few times because I like 'How soon is now' and some of Marr's guitar work is canny. Problem is, I cant get past Morrisey. He has piled on the pounds like.

Exactly. exactly. But you've been disagreeing with this all down the line ........ Where? (quote please) I've said all along we shouldn't invade Iraq and build a westernised greenzone that covers four square miles of the capital. They should hoy us out for that. And if any foreigner came to this country and broke any British law I'm happy to see them deported.

Who gives a fuck. BRING BACK THE A-TEAM/GRANGE HILL/STAR TREK/FAME/THE GOONIES/DALLAS

omg, that is one hell of an improvement in your perception. I think it's probably more of an improvement in your perception of me, because my perception of the situation hasn't changed. The threat is still miniscule and i don't think a change in level should be an international news story.

Lovely penmanship

Ke$ha - TiK ToK 8 weeks at number one? Fuck me.

To be fair they're damned if they do and dammned if they don't. Look at 9/11. All the conspiracy theorists hammer the Bush era government/intelligence because they had seen increased chatter and new about the potential for an attack just days before it happened. Without anything concrete, nobody pushed it though. Now the government send out a clear message indicating that perhaps the intelligence community are seeing some similar sort of activity and they get grief for that too because they can't say individual x is going to blow up plane y.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8512049.stm 3 metres? WTF? She can still throw paperclips at him.

I've not followed the Euro at all so this is totally uninformed and a genuine question, but is this like the people who're saying there's no global warming because the snow's been awful this winter? Hasn't the Euro on the whole been rather succesful?