bridge too far

One of my friends is a film editor. He did a lot of work for Saatchi and Saatchi during Thatcher's tenure. They were spin doctors masquerading as an advertising agency.

Dune - the grown ups are debating. No room for you here ATM sunshine

My father also turned them down. He was uncomfortable with the idea of a secret society.

Only today, our blatantly left-wing government is telling us how many hours exercise our toddlers should be doing!

Poor old Polly - what's she done to upset the raving right? She'd be the first person to argue for freedom of the press FFS. There's a big difference between Freedom of the Press and using illegal means to collect 'evidence'.

I think Dune was the one who opined that NOTW readers were 'thick'.

These days, as witnessed by the very long lead-in time, soft furniture is made to order. Retailers don't keep stock (apart from the display stuff) so their argument would be that they couldn't sell the furniture on, or if they did, it would be at a significant discount.

The retailer is right. Sorry

It'll come back to bite me on the bum, I'm sure. But it has to be read in context and not be construed as a change of direction

For once, I find myself agreeing with you (maybe I am getting old). Not only do I also think that a lot more hacking will be uncovered, I also think that senior politicians of all parties and senior police officers will also be exposed because Murdoch has some sort of hold over them. Maybe, then, Murdoch's true agenda will also be revealed.

I wasn't aware that correcting bad grammar makes me a 'Polly Toynbee'. However, I'm proud to be linked with that great journalist, even if by default.

Full praise to the Guardian for sticking with the exposure of all things Murdoch and particularly this disgraceful and disgusting episode.

For the sake of clarity you should have written that first time around, including the capitalisation of Derby, City and Council.

Yeah - echo that! Happy Birthday Duncan

You're the Conservative leader of Derby City Council?

Whilst time is of an essence in contracts like this, there's nothing to stop anyone letting a contract from withdrawing the EU advert and then resubmitting it with new award criteria. This happens all the time because of changes to specifications etc. Sure, it costs a bit, particularly if the bid process has been going for some time.

Yes, you're absolutely right - they would have been in the ordure if that had been their SOLE reason for selecting Bombadier. But, as I said earlier, the tender package could have been written in such a way as to include, in the level playing field, costs for unemployment, environmental issues etc. etc. I don't know anything about this particular contract - I'm just talking in generalities. But if what you're saying is true about the ConDems ignored the work done under the previous administration, then that is poor.

But there are ways and means that could have been used when judging the tenders. Value for Money could have, for instance, taken into account the financial and human cost of throwing that number of people on the scrapheap. Environmental considerations could have been thrown into the mix. All these things could have been written into the criteria upon which each bid would have been judged. But, it seems, the bottom line in terms of pounds and pence to deliver the trains is all that was considered. Bad procurement IMO

Oh

So far - yes

Boo

Are you sure? Would that lady be SOOOOO desperate?

Is that your mother?

This might satisfy your lust ) http://www.viz.co.uk/

Then you'll need to contact me as I, too, live in Dave's patch and am already involved in such subversion!