bridge too far

It's a circular thing, lovey. The 'poor bloody workers' make stuff and sell it to, amongst others, the poor bloody workers in the public sector. What comes around, goes around.

Very damning comments from the leader of the GPs' union: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/19/doctors-warned-expect-unrest-reforms

No it isn't - it's reinforcing the point that we all pay for public services even though some of us don't use or want to use them. I am pacifist but I still have to pay for you

So you do watch it! Then you have no case to make against paying the 'tax' as you so eloquently put it. I have never used the Fire Service or the Police Service but I have no objection to paying for it.

Nothing on Companies House (unless you pay - I guess that's your point) but, on Google, apart from loads of promotions, I found this http://eyeoverheard.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/perfect-glasses-usa-to-release-iphone-app-who-gives-a-crap/ Looks like the company could be a branch of the US operation or perhaps a franchise?

Whereas you'll watch the politically biased coverage of the Murdoch empire? You never, ever watch the BBC at all then, I'm guessing.

pea

And, now that I'm retired and able to watch daytime BBC, I would add that currently BBC1 is showing an excellent range of daytime drama. And then there's David Attenborough and a superb range of History programmes at the moment too. Real value for money IMO.

cough

This

He certainly has a wind-up gramaphone!

The guest list was nothing to do with who I liked or knew. It was their wedding - they chose a limited number of friends and family to attend, not me. I'm sorry to hear your hotel isn't doing too well. Maybe the Royal Wedding will make a big difference. And that's a sincere sentiment.

Is there no end to your attributing statements to me that I've never made? Did I say they could have an ORDINARY wedding? No, I didn't. In the same way as my daughter had a low-cost wedding because that's all we could afford, then this particular couple should have the wedding that suits their circumstances / parents' ability to pay. Since both families are (multi) millionaires, I see no reason why I and the rest of the public should fork out for their jollities. Which hotel do you own, by the way?

I think you'll find they do Comic Relief rather than Children in Need. Where have I said that the people you mention should pay a levy? I've just said the couple's family should pay for the wedding (like every other family in the land does) and that the money saved could be used for a far more worthwhile cause or two. What's so dreadful about that?

Nope - didn't dodge it, but expanded it to make it more relevant.

Will that include the Countryside Alliance or will it only be 'left wing / tree huggers / yoghurt knitters' that have to cover the costs?

Aah right. So the tourists may pay out £620m to the businesses they patronise but only a percentage of that will go into the nation's coffers (from those businesses that choose to pay tax, that is).

Or, better still, get the couple's families to pay for the do and give the £620m to Children in Need maybe?

Eminem

minim

I don't mind CiN in principle - I just find the show itself pretty poor as a rule. I'd rather give money quietly to charities I support than make a big song and dance about it. It's just such a shame that these groups have to rely on charity instead of being supported, as they should, by our taxes. The taxpayers' contributions for the forthcoming nuptials would probably more than pay for some of those children caring for ill parents to have a proper childhood with professionals doing the caring and that was the point I was trying to make.

minute (as in - do you have a ....) Coat removed from hook

coffee

I did chuckle at this reader's comment in the Grauniad today: Well lets rejoice that William is finally taking a lady up the aisle. I for one will be delighted when I can see her ring. Sorry, can't get rid of the bold / font size

cocaine