sotonjoe

There are a lot of muppet drivers out there who fail to use the appropriate speed for the conditions, i.e. not slowing down sufficiently for bends or other obstructions. In theory, reducing the speed limit is a good idea. However, there's a rather naive assumption there that the muppets would all instantly take notice and actually reduce the speed, which probably isn't going to happen. The real solution would be to shoot them all.

TBF, Oasis had gone as far as they could musically by 1995.

It's not about whether we like some of the programmes on the BBC; more that we shouldn't be forced into paying for the tat they make that we have no interest in.

The BBC should not be using a 'news' channel to advertise their Saturday night shows. End of. I think the sweeping generalisation that "people want them to" is a bit naff to be honest.

Sounds like you were slapped about so much that you lost the ability to construct a sentence. I rest my case.

Because she's covered in ****?

What has teaching boundaries got to do with slapping someone?

If you've watched the BBC News channel for any length of time, you should be disgusted at the amount of time they spend plugging their own crappy entertainment shows.

If you're happy to pay for a television show that appeals to the lowest common denominator, but you have no interest in, then there's no hope. Why have a system that has a combination of licence fee and subscription only services; surely it should be one or the other? I'd be interested to see a list of high quality bbc programming, I know "**** Off, I'm Fat" is pretty edgy, but I'm not sure why I'm obliged to pay for it.

Is this actually true?:confused:

Probably some ****ed up some slapper trying to make excuses for forgetting the word "no".

I wonder how long he would get if current form were to continue.

If you think Strictly Come Dancing is worth £11 a month, there's no hope.

You don't need to resort to violence to teach right from wrong.

eh? so nobody was assaulted?

And that was your attempt at optimism right?

Harry Redknapp is the man. He has an undisputed record of success and has achieved great things at all the clubs he has managed.

Don't be so down on yourself.

great fred

I don't think that's true at all. I've no idea why you're talking about "six years" as presumably the length of guarantee is the most important factor in deeming how long you can leave something before making a claim. I'm pretty sure that, legally, there's a point past which your claim lies with a manufacturer and not the supplier of the goods. For instance, my router is 18months old and is playing up. Dlink, the manufacturer, offer a two year guarantee. If I want it repaired etc my claim would be with them and not PC World who supplied it. By your logic, you think I could walk into the shop and demand they sort it?

She asked him did she?

some would say it's safer ... yes

Saw a prgramme about these a few weeks back. It raised the interesting point that many of them are potentially more dangerous than the illegal alternatives. Think about, we've been testing illegal drugs for some time to assess what they can actually do so as long as you know what you're being provided with, you should know what you're letting yourself in for. Alternatively, the legal high industry is completely unregulated, all the products untested and you haven't got a clue what you are sticking in your body. In short, it's probably even more of a mug's game than taking 'real' drugs.

Baj ... this isn't a "members' wives" forum.

My understanding of this act was that it was only the seller's responsibility for the first ninety days. After that, your claim lies with the manufacturer.